
Glass 



__ 






Book 









IjU^^hcvvwka 






THE EEEOEMEES 



OOLOGY OF THE EEFOEMATION. 



BY THE LATE 



WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D., 

N 

PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. 



EDITED BY HIS LITEEAEY EXECUTOES. 




EDINBURGH: 
T. AND T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 

ONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN: JOHN EOBEETSON. 
MDCCCLXVI. 



fi 









MURRAY AND GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH, 



PREFACE. 



In introducing the present volume to the Public, the 
Editors feel that a few words of explanation may be 
desirable, in regard to the trust assigned to them, and 
the manner in which they have, in so far, attempted to 
discharge it. 

In the interview which, at Dr Cunningham's request, 
they had with him within a few hours of his death, he 
committed to them the charge of his whole writings and 
manuscripts connected with the College, to be deposited 
in the Library, and to be used and applied to any purpose 
they judged right ; stating, that he gave them absolute 
power to do in the matter as they considered to be best for 
his character and the good of the Church. The charge 
thus verbally entrusted to them was formally and legally 
confirmed by the Trustees acting under Dr Cunningham's 
settlement; so that the Editors became invested with the 
character of his Literary Executors, and with the full 
powers and responsibilities attaching to such an office. 



IV PREFACE. 

On examining his writings, they found that, with 
respect to an important portion of them, some little 
delay must occur before they could be properly pre- 
pared for the press, owing to their being required for the 
work of the Class during the present session of College ; 
and that the wide-spread desire throughout the Church 
for the early publication of some of his valuable contri- 
butions to Theology, could be best met by giving to the 
Public the present volume in anticipation of the rest. 
It is made up of a number of Articles contributed by 
Dr Cunningham to the British and Foreign Evangelical 
Review, with a few additions from his manuscript 
Lectures on Church History. The substance of these 
Articles originally formed a series of carefully prepared 
Lectures, delivered to his Class, on the leading Reformers 
and the character of their Theology ; and they were 
subsequently transferred to the pages of the Review 
in which they appeared, with almost no alteration be- 
yond extensive enlargements and additions, and such 
references to the more recent criticisms upon the Re- 
formers as were suggested by the books reviewed. They 
were written upon a plan, and as an orderly series of 
discussions, embracing the leading historical characters, 
and the great developments of scriptural truth at the 
time of the Reformation ; and were intended by their 
Author for separate publication as a connected whole. 
Happily the series was completed before Dr Cunning- 



PREFACE. V 

ham's death; and it now exhibits a full and systematic 
view of the leading agents, and of the spiritual principles, 
of that great theological and ecclesiastical movement in 
the sixteenth century, which constitutes the greatest 
event in the history of the Church of Christ since the 
Apostolic Age, and which has bequeathed to us, in the 
present day, both our Church creeds and our Church 
polity. 

The alterations which the Editors, in the exercise 
of their discretion, have made on the original text, 
have been more numerous than important, and in no 
case have affected the substance of the thought or 
reasoning. They have been guided in these alterations, 
sometimes by the manuscript corrections made by Dr 
Cunningham himself; sometimes by the desire to avoid 
those repetitions and references to passing events, which 
naturally occur in a series of Articles appearing at inter- 
vals in the pages of a periodical ; and sometimes by a 
conviction — which many years of confidential intercourse 
with the Author on the subjects handled, as well as his 
own last instructions to them, enabled and warranted 
them to act upon — of what he himself would have done 
had he been permitted to revise, with his own eye, the 
sheets before publication. 

The quotations and references have been verified and 
corrected, with the kind assistance of the Rev. John 
Laing, Librarian to the New College. 



VI PREFACE. 

The Editors expect to be enabled in a short time 
to issue two other volumes similar to the present, 
and comprising a full review of the leading theological 
discussions that have taken place in the Christian 
Church since the Apostolic Age. 

JAMES BUCHANAN. 
JAMES BANNERMAN. 

New College, Edinburgh, 
April 1862. 






CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

THE LEADEES OF THE EEFOEMATION, ...... 1 

LUTHEE, 54 

THE EEFOEMEES AND THE DOCTEINE OF ASSUEANCE, . . Ill 

MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHUECH OF 

ENGLAND, 149 

ZWLNGLE AND THE DOCTEINE OF THE SACEAMENTS, . . 212 

JOHN CALVIN, 292 

CALVIN AND BEZA, 345 

CALVINISM AND AEMINIANISM, 413 

CALVINISM AND THE DOCTEINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL 

NECESSITY, 471 

CALVINISM AND ITS PEACTICAL APPLICATION, ... 525 

THE EEFOEMEES AND THE LESSONS FEOM THEIE HISTOEY, . 600 



LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION.* 



\ i 



HE Reformation from Popery in the sixteenth century 
was the greatest event, or series of events, that has 
occurred since the close of the canon of Scripture ; 
and the men who are really entitled to be called the 
"Leaders of the Reformation" have a claim to more respect and 
gratitude than any other body of uninspired men that have ever 
influenced or adorned the church. The Reformation was closely 
connected in various ways with the different influences which 
about that period were affecting for good the general condition 
of Europe, and, in combination with them, it aided largely in 
introducing and establishing great improvements in all matters 
affecting literature, civilisation, liberty, and social order. The 
movement, however, was primarily and fundamentally a religious 
one ; and all the most important questions that may be started 
about its character and consequences, should be decided by tests 
and considerations properly applicable to the subject of true reli- 
gion. The Reformers claimed to be regarded as being engaged 
in a religious work, which was in accordance with God's revealed 
t will, and fitted to promote the spiritual welfare of men ; and we 
are at once entitled and bound to judge of them and their work, 
by investigating and ascertaining the validity of this claim. 

There are two leading aspects in which the Reformation, 
viewed as a whole, may be regarded : the one more external and 
negative, and the other more intrinsic and positive. In the first 



* British and Foreign Evangelical I " Leaders of the Reformation, 
Review, April 1860. j by John Tulloch, D.D." 1859. 

VOL. I. 1 



2 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

aspect it was a great revolt against the see of Rome, and against 
the authority of the church and of churchmen in religious matters, 
combined with an assertion of the exclusive authority of the Bible, 
and of the right of all men to examine and interpret it for them- 
selves. In the second and more important and positive aspect, 
the Reformation was the proclamation and inculcation, upon the 
alleged authority of Scripture, of certain views in regard to the 
substance of Christianity or the way of salvation, and in regard 
to the organization and ordinances of the Christian church. Many 
men have approved and commended the Reformation, viewed 
merely as a repudiation of human authority in religion, and an 
assertion of the right of private judgment, and of the exclusive 
supremacy of the Scriptures as the rule of faith, who have 
not concurred in the leading views of the Reformers in regard 
to Christian theology and church organization. In this sense, 
rationalists and latitudinarians have generally professed to adopt 
and act upon what they call the principles of the Reformation, 
while they reject all the leading doctrines of the Reformers. Men 
of this class usually attempt to pay off the Reformers with the 
credit of having emancipated mankind from ecclesiastical thraldom, 
established the right of private judgment, and done something 
to encourage the practice of free inquiry. But while giving 
the Reformers credit for these things, they have often rejected 
the leading doctrines of the Reformation upon theological and 
ecclesiastical subjects, and have been in the habit of claiming to 
themselves the credit of having succeeded, by following out the 
principles of the Reformation, in educing, either from Scripture 
or from their own speculations, more accurate and enlightened 
doctrinal views than the Reformers ever attained to. There has 
been a great deal of this sort of thing put forth both by rationalists 
and latitudinarians who professed to admit the authority of the 
Christian revelation, and by infidels who denied it. Dr Robertson 
in his Life of Charles v. spoke of some doctrinal discussions of 
that period in such terms as justly to lay himself open to the 
following rebuke of Scott, the son of the commentator, in his 
excellent continuation of Miiner's " History of the Church of 
Christ." 

" It is manifest what is the character that Dr Robertson here affects, which 
is that of the philosopher and the statesman, in preference, if not to the dis- 
paragement of that of the Christian divine. This is entirely to the taste of 



Essay. I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 3 

modern times, and will be sure to secure to him the praise of large and liberal 
views among those who regard a high sense of the importance of revealed 
truth, and all ' contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints,' 
as the infallible mark of narrow-mindedness and bigotry." * 

Dr Campbell of Aberdeen, too, who was a very great pre- 
tender to candour, has, in the last of his lectures on ecclesiastical 
history, made it manifest that he considered the chief benefits 
which the Reformers had conferred upon the world to be, the 
setting an example of free inquiry, and the exposing of church 
tyranny, superstitious and idolatrous practices, and clerical arti- 
fices ; and that he despised all their zealous efforts and contendings 
in restoring the pure gospel of the grace of God — the true sys- 
tem of Christian theology — as conversant only, according to the 
common cant of latitudinarians, with metaphysical subtleties and 
scholastic jargon. 

But the climax, perhaps, of this practice of paying off the 
Reformers with some commendation of their services in promot- 
ing free inquiry, while all their leading doctrines are rejected, is 
to be found in the facts, that in our own day such a man as 
Bretschneider wrote a " Dissertatio de Rationalismo Lutheri," 
and that Wegscheider dedicated his " Institutiones Theologian 
Christianas Dogmaticse," which is just a system of Deism in a 
sort of Christian dress, " Piis Manibus Martini Lutheri," mainly 
upon the ground that he had opened up liberty of thought, and 
encouraged posterity to advance much farther in the path on 
which he had entered. 

A somewhat different aspect of this matter has been presented 
by certain writers, who are not disposed to allow to the Reformers 
even the credit of having encouraged and promoted free inquiry. 
It has been alleged that there is little or nothing said in the writ- 
ings of the Reformers about the right and duty of private judg- 
ment, and that the absence of this, combined witli their great zeal 
for what they reckoned truth, and their strenuous and vehement 
opposition to what they reckoned error, proved that after all they 
were nothing better than narrow-minded bigots. Hallam, in his 
" Literature of Europe during the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries," 
has some statements to this effect ; and the facts on which he 
founds are in the main true, though they certainly do not warrant 



* Vol. i. p. 270. 



4 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

his conclusions.* It must, however, we fear, be conceded to 
Hallam and others who take this view — 1st, that the Reformers 
were not much in the habit of formally and elaborately discussing, 
as a distinct and independent topic, what has since been called the 
right and duty of private judgment ; and 2d, that they ever pro- 
fessed it to be their great object to find out the actual truth of 
God contained in His word, that they were very confident that in 
regard to the main points of their teaching they had found the 
truth, and that they were very strenuous in urging that other men 
should receive it also upon God's authority. And these facts are 
amply sufficient to secure for them, in certain quarters, the repu- 
tation of being narrow-minded bigots. 

The Reformers did not discuss at much length, or with any 
great formality, the subject of the right of private judgment as a 
general topic ; but they understood and acted upon their right as 
rational and responsible beings to reject all mere human authority 
in religious matters, to try everything by the standard of God's 
word, and to judge for themselves, on their own responsibility, as 
to the meaning of its statements. And by following this course, 
by acting on this principle, by setting this example, they have con- 
ferred most important benefits upon the church and the world. 

The fundamental position maintained by the Reformers was 
this, that the views which they had been led to form, as to what 
should be the doctrine, worship, and government of the Church 
of Christ, were right, and that the views of the Church of Rome 
upon these points, as opposed to theirs, were wrong. This was the 
grand position they occupied, and they based their whole procedure 
upon the ground of the paramount claims of divine truth, its right, 
as coming from God and being invested with His authority, to be 
listened to, to be obeyed, and to be propagated. When the Papists 
opposed them in the maintenance of this position, and appealed 
on their own behalf to tradition, to ecclesiastical authority, to the 
decisions of popes and councils, the Reformers in reply pushed all 
this aside, by asserting the supremacy of the written word as the 
only standard of faith and practice, by denying the legitimacy of 
submitting to mere human authority in religious matters, and by 
maintaining that men are entitled and bound to judge for them- 
selves, upon their own responsibility, as to what God in His word 



* Part I. chap. iv. sees. 60, 61. 



Essay I.] 



LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 



has required them to believe and to do. They asserted these 
positions more or less fully as circumstances required, but still 
they regarded them as in some sense subsidiary and subordinate. 
The primary question with them always was, What is the truth 
as to the way in which God ought to be worshipped, in which a 
sinner is saved, and in which the ordinances and arrangements of 
the Church of Christ ought to be regulated ? They were bent 
upon answering, and answering aright, this important question, 
and they brushed aside everything that stood in their way and 
obstructed their progress. 

There can be no doubt that the only satisfactory explanation of 
the conduct of the Reformers is, that they regarded themselves as 
fighting for the cause of God ; and it is creditable to Hallam that, 
unable, as he admitted, to understand their theology, and having 
no predilection on their behalf, he should have seen and asserted 
this, in opposition to the ordinary calumnies of the Papists.* But 
the great, the only really important, question is, Was it indeed 
the cause of God ? or in other words, Was it indeed the truth of 
God which they deduced from His word, and which they laboured 
to promote and to enforce ? If it was not so, then they have 
deserved little gratitude, and they can have effected little good. 
In estimating the value of what God gave to them, and what they 
have transmitted to us, almost everything depends upon the truth, 
the scriptural truth, of the doctrines which they taught and 
laboured to advance. The highest honour of the Reformers, or 
rather the principal gift which God gave them, viewed as public 



* Hallam's statements about Luther 
and the Reformers are certainly very- 
defective and erroneous, but they have 
much the appearance of being chiefly 
traceable to what may be called honest 
ignorance. He seems to have intended 
to be fair and candid in his statements 
regarding them, and he probably was 
about as much so as could reasonably 
be expected of a man who was very 
imperfectly acquainted with theologi- 
cal subjects. He admits (P. 1, c. iv. 
s. 61), that " every solution of the 
conduct of the Reformers must be 
nugatory, except one — that they were 
men absorbed by the conviction that 
they were fighting the battle of God." 
He describes Luther (s. 59) as a man 



" whose soul was penetrated with a 
fervent piety, and whose integrity as 
well as purity of life are unquestioned." 
He admits (c. vi. s. 26) that he had 
but a "slight acquaintance" with 
Luther's writings, and that he had 
"found it impossible to reconcile or 
understand his tenets concerning faith 
and works." After all this, it was 
scarcely to be expected, from Hallam's 
usual good sense and fairness, that he 
should have charged Luther with 
Antinomianism. There is a thorough 
exposure of the incompetency of Hal- 
lam, as well as of Sir William Hamil- 
ton, in this matter, in Archdeacon 
Hare's admirable " Vindication of 
Luther." 



6 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

teachers who have exerted an influence upon the state of religious 
opinion and practice in the world, was that, in point of fact, they 
did deduce from the word of God the truths or true doctrines 
which are there set forth, and that they brought them out, and 
expounded and enforced them in such a way as led, through 
God's blessing, to their being extensively received and applied. 
Christian theology, in some of its most important articles, had for 
a long period been grossly corrupted in the Church of Rome, 
which then comprehended the largest portion of Christendom. 
The Lord was pleased, through the instrumentality of the Re- 
formers, to expose these corruptions, to bring out prominently 
before the world the true doctrines of His word in regard to the 
worship which He required and would accept, the way in which 
He had provided and was bestowing, and in which sinners were 
to receive, the salvation of the gospel, and the way in which the 
ordinances and arrangements of His church were to be regulated ; 
and to effect that these true scriptural doctrines should be exten- 
sively disseminated, should become powerfully influential, and 
should be permanently preserved over a considerable portion of 
His church. The Lord did this by His Spirit at the era of the 
Reformation, and He employed in doing it the instrumentality of 
the Reformers. He guided them not only to the adoption of the 
right method, the use of the appropriate means for detecting 
error and discovering divine truth, but what was of primary and 
paramount importance, He guided them to a right judgment — 
that is, right in the main and with respect to all fundamental 
points, as to what particular doctrines were true and false, accord- 
ing to the standard of His own written word. Their unquestion- 
able sincerity and integrity, their unwearied zeal and activity, 
their great talents and their undaunted courage, would only have 
shed a false glare around a bad cause, if it was not indeed the 
cause of God which they were maintaining. Their other good 
qualities would have tended rather to evil than to good results, if 
it had not been really error which they opposed and God's truth 
which they supported. We believe nothing because the Reformers 
believed it, and we approve of nothing because they practised it ; 
but, judging of them by the same standard which they applied to 
the Church of Rome, and by which they professed to regulate 
their own opinions and conduct, because we believe with them that 
it is the right standard, we are firmly persuaded that what they 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 7 

opposed was error — grievous and dangerous error, and that what 
they maintained was in the main truth — God's own truth — taught 
in His word, and applied to them by the teaching of His own 
Spirit. 

There is so much unanimity among the Reformers, so much 
harmony in the confessions of the Reformed churches, as to entitle 
us to speak of the theology of the Reformation as conveying a 
pretty distinct idea of a particular system of doctrine upon the 
leading articles of the Christian faith ; and we think it can be 
proved, not only that this theology was sound and scriptural, as 
compared with what had previously prevailed in the Church of 
Rome, but that the deviations which Protestants have since made 
from it have been in the main retrogressions from truth to error. 
We do not set up the Reformers as guides or oracles ; we do not 
invest them with any authority, or believe anything because they 
believed it. There is, indeed, no authority in religion but that of 
God ; and authority, in its strict and proper sense, does not admit 
of degrees. The fact that certain doctrines were taught by some 
particular class or body of men, is either at once and of itself a 
sufficient reason why we must embrace them, or else it is of no 
real weight and validity in determining what we should believe. 
It is entitled to be received as authoritative and determining, only 
when the men in question can produce satisfactory evidence that 
they have been commissioned and inspired by God. There is a 
sense, indeed, in which some respect or deference is due to the 
opinions of others. But this respect or deference should never be 
transmuted into anything like authority or obligation. It may 
afford a valid call for careful attention and diligent investigation, 
but for nothing more. It should have no determining or con- 
trolling influence. The Reformers, with respect to all points in 
which they were substantially of one mind, may be regarded as 
being upon the whole entitled to more respect and deference than 
any other body of men who could be specified or marked out at 
any one period in the history of the church. But it holds true 
universally, that God has never given to any uninspired man, or 
body of men, to rise altogether above the influence of the circum- 
stances in which they were placed, in the formation and expression 
of their opinions upon religious subjects. And even the greatest 
admirers of the Reformers readily admit that they, all of them, 
though not in the main features of their theological system, yielded 



8 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay T. 

more or less to the various sources of error which prevail among 
men ; and more particularly, that they exhibited, on the one hand, 
traces that they had not wholly escaped from the corrupting in- 
fluence of the system in which they had been educated, and on 
the other hand, what is equally natural, that they were some- 
times in danger, in avoiding one extreme, of falling into the 
opposite one. 

These obvious views about the position and services of the 
Reformers have been suggested to us by the perusal of Principal 
Tulloch's work on the "Leaders of the Reformation." It is intended 
as a popular sketch of the main features in the history of Luther, 
Calvin, Latimer, and Knox; and, regarded in this light, it is fairly 
entitled to very considerable commendation. We cannot say that 
the work displays any great power of thought, or any great extent 
of research. We have no idea that Dr Tulloch is familiar with 
the writings of the Reformers, or that he is qualified to appreciate 
them in connection with the highest departments of the work 
which they performed. But he has given a very intelligent, in- 
teresting, and candid survey of the principal features of the life 
and the general character and position of the men whom he has 
selected as the leaders of the Reformation. He has taken consi- 
derable pains to understand and to state accurately most of the 
points he has discussed. He has shown a large measure of fair- 
ness and candour in the principal views he has put forth ; and he 
has presented them generally in a very pleasing and interesting 
style. 

Dr Tulloch's book, as a whole, would have been entitled to very 
considerable commendation, if it had not put forth some very 
objectionable and dangerous views in regard to the theology of 
the Reformers, by far the most important feature in their history. 
The object of the work did not require of Dr Tulloch to enter into 
theological exposition or discussion, and we might have passed over 
the work with commending what was commendable in it, if he had 
entirely ignored theological subjects. But he has not done this. 
He has put forth certain views in regard to the theology of the 
Reformers which we believe to be unsound and dangerous, and 
which we think it incumbent upon us to expose. 

The Reformers themselves reckoned it the great duty which 
they were called upon to discharge, the great work which God 
gave them to do, to bring out from the sacred Scriptures right 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 9 

views of Christian theology and of church organization, in oppo- 
sition to those which generally prevailed in the Church of Rome. 
They believed that they were enabled, by God's grace, to succeed 
to a large extent in doing this ; and all who have since concurred 
with them in this belief have also, as a matter of course, regarded 
their success in this respect as a very great service rendered to the 
church and the world, — as, indeed, the greatest service which they 
rendered, or could render. We believe that the theology of the 
Reformation, in its great leading features, both as it respects doc- 
trine in the more limited sense of the word, and as it respects the 
organization of the church as a society, is the unchangeable truth 
of God revealed in His word, which individuals and churches are 
bound to profess and to act upon. Dr Tulloch, we fear, has come 
to a different conclusion upon this important question, and has 
plainly enough given the world to understand that, in his judg- 
ment, the theology of the Reformation, though a creditable and 
useful thing in the sixteenth century, and a great improvement on 
the state of matters that then prevailed in the Church of Rome, 
has now become antiquated and obsolete, and quite unsuitable to 
the enlightenment which characterizes this age. 

Pie does not adduce any specific objections against the theo- 
logy of the Reformation ; but, having attained to a much greater 
elevation, a far higher platform, than the Reformers ever reached, 
he coolly but conclusively sets aside the results of all their inves- 
tigations of divine things, as now scarcely worthy of being seri- 
ously examined. This not only, as we have already explained, 
deprives the Reformers of what all who have in the main adopted 
their principles have regarded as the greatest honour which God 
conferred upon them, the greatest service they were enabled to 
render ; but it bears, and, as we believe, bears injuriously, upon 
a matter of infinitely greater importance than any question affect- 
ing the reputation of any body of men, even the accurate exposition 
of the system of revealed truth. Dr Tulloch does not profess to 
discuss any theological questions, and his views upon these points 
are brought out very vaguely and imperfectly. But he has said 
enough to show that he has given up the theology of the Refor- 
mation as untenable and unsatisfactory; and he evidently thinks 
that all liberal men who are abreast of this enlightened age must 
do the same. It is quite evident that men's whole views and 
impressions in regard to the history of the Reformers must be 



10 



LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 



[Essay I. 



greatly influenced by the admission or the denial, that they were 
God's instruments in bringing out to a large extent the permanent 
truth revealed in His word, and in restoring the church to a large 
measure of apostolic purity; and it is highly creditable to Dr Tul- 
loch that, denying this, he should have treated them with so large 
a measure of justice and fairness in most other respects. But it 
was scarcely possible that one who withholds from them their 
highest and most peculiar honour, should be perfectly just and 
fair to them in everything else ; and there are indications, though 
not many or important, of his depreciating them even in matters 
not much connected with their theology. There is not much to 
complain of in what he says of Luther and Knox, barring their 
theology, except that he underrates their intellectual powers when 
he says of the former,* that u as a theological thinker he takes no 
high rank, and has left little or no impress upon human history ;" 
and of the latter,f that "as a mere thinker, save perhaps on politi- 
cal subjects, he takes no rank."J 

Few, we think, who have read the principal works of Luther 
and Knox will concur in this opinion of these men ; and even in 
some of the things which Dr Tulloch himself has recorded about 
them, there is enough to convince discerning men that they did 
take high rank as thinkers on theological subjects. Luther, not- 
withstanding his great mental powers, and the great light he has 
thrown upon many important topics of discussion, had yet such 
defects and infirmities as to unfit him very much for being 
appealed to as a guide or oracle on theological subjects ; and 
Knox, overshadowed by Calvin, is not so frequently contemplated 
as a theologian, though his treatise on Predestination proves, we 
venture to think, that he is entitled to take high rank as a thinker. 
For the reasons now referred to, neither Luther nor Knox seems 
to have strongly excited Dr Tulloch's anti-theological zeal, and he 
certainly deals out to them a large measure of justice and candour, 



* P. 72. f P. 317. 

% This somewhat supercilious way 
of disposing of eminent men is in great 
favour with Dr Tulloch. He applies 
it to Beza likewise, calling him (p. 
145) "a lively, meddlesome, service- 
able, but by no means great man." 
Sir William Hamilton, who, when he 
condescends to praise any of the Re- 
formers, and particularly when the 



question respects their talents and 
acquirements, must be regarded as a 
somewhat higher authority than Dr 
Tulloch, has pronounced such an eulo- 
gium on Beza as plainly implies that 
fie reckoned him a great man, and he 
expressly describes him as " this great 
thinker and illustrious divine." (Be 
not Schismatics, etc., p. 30, 35.) 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 11 

though he does not appreciate fully either their talents or their 
services. 

Calvin, however, as might be expected, does not fare so well 
in Dr Tulloch's hands. He was so thoroughly the great repre- 
sentative of all that Dr Tulloch seems most heartily to disapprove 
and dislike, — viz. a distinct and definite system of theological 
doctrine, and a church organization upon the model of apostolic 
precept and practice, — that it was scarcely to be expected that the 
great Reformer would get justice from him. He does not, indeed, 
so far as we remember, make any direct attempt to depreciate 
Calvin's intellectual powers, or to dispute his right " to take high 
rank as a thinker." But we have a strong impression that he 
comes far short of a just appreciation even of Calvin's mental 
powers and capacities. And it should not be forgotten, that it 
has become very much the fashion now-a-days, even among 
Romanists, as a matter of policy, to praise Calvin's talents. Even 
Audin, his latest popish biographer, who is just as thoroughly 
unprincipled as the champions of Popery usually are, has given 
the appearance of something like candour to his " Life of Calvin," 
by strong statements about his great talents, his literary excel- 
lences, and his commanding influence. Dr Tulloch, while he 
makes no direct attempt to depreciate Calvin's talents, does 
injustice, we think, in several respects to his general character. 
He says nothing, indeed, against him which has not been said 
often before. He just repeats what has been so frequently alleged 
against Calvin, — his want of the more amiable and engaging 
qualities, his pride and coldness, his sternness and cruelty. He 
does not seem to appreciate the purity and elevation of the motives 
by which Calvin was animated, and of the objects he aimed at. 
He does not appear to have turned to good account the greater 
accessibility now-a-days of Calvin's Letters, which are so admir- 
ably fitted to counteract some of the prevailing misconceptions of 
his character, and to show that there was nearly as much about 
him to love as to admire, as much to excite affection and confidence 
as veneration and respect. Dr Jules Bonnet, who has done so 
much to make Calvin's Letters more widely known, describes, in 
the preface to the English translation, his letters to Fare], Viret, 
and Beza, as exhibiting " the overflowings of a heart filled with 
the deepest and most acute sensibility." It might have been 
supposed that no one who had really read the two volumes of 



12 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

Calvin's Letters to which this statement is prefixed, would have 
any doubt of its truth and accuracy. But Dr Tulloch, it seems, 
has not been able to find anything of this sort ; and, accordingly, 
he disposes of Dr Bonnet's statement in this way*- — "Overflowing 
of any kind is exactly what you never find in Calvin, even in his 
most familiar letters." We fear that Dr Tulloch must understand 
the word "overflowing" in a different sense from other men; for if 
we had space, we could easily produce plenty of extracts from his 
Letters, which most men, we are confident, would, without any 
hesitation, declare to be overflowings of the warmest and tenderest 
feeling, outpourings of the most hearty and cordial kindness and 
sympathy, and of the purest and noblest friendship. Calvin's 
character, intellectual, moral, and religious, has been most highly 
appreciated by the most competent judges ; and the collection of 
testimonies in commendation of him and his works, published in 
one of the last volumes of the Calvin Translation Society, con- 
taining his Commentary on Joshua, is probably unexampled in 
the history of the human race. But we are not sure if a more 
emphatic tribute to his excellence and his power is not furnished 
by the hostility of which he has been the object ; often breaking 
out into furious rancour, and frequently, even when assuming a 
greatly modified aspect, indicating a strong disposition to depre- 
ciate him, and to bring him down to the level of ordinary men. 
But we cannot dwell longer upon this topic. We must hasten to 
notice the position which Dr Tulloch has assumed in regard to the 
theology of the Reformation ; and here it will be necessary in 
fairness to give him an opportunity of speaking for himself. His 
views are brought out pretty fully in the following extracts : — 

" The spiritual principle is eternally divine and powerful. It is a very dif- 
ferent thing when we turn to contemplate the dogmatic statements of Luther. 
So soon as Luther began to evolve his principle, and coin its living heart once 
more into dogma, he showed that he had not risen above the scholastic spirit 
which he aimed to destroy. It was truly impossible that he could do so. Not 
even the massive energy of Luther could pierce through those intellectual 
influences which had descended as a hoary heritage of ages to the sixteenth 
century, "f 

" The Reformation, in its theology, did not and could not escape the 
deteriorating influences of the scholastic spirit, for that spirit survived it, and 
lived on in streogth, although in a modified form, throughout the seventeenth 

* P. 153. f P. 83. 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 13 

century. In one important particular, indeed, the scholastic and Protestant 
systems of theology entirely differed : the latter began their systematizing 
from the very opposite extreme to that of the former — from the divine and 
not from the human side of redemption — from God and not from man. And 
this is a difference on the side of truth by no means to be overlooked. Still 
the spirit is the same — the spirit which does not hesitate to break up the 
divine unity of the truth in Scripture into its own logical shreds and patches, 
which tries to discriminate what in its moral essence is inscrutable, and to 
trace in distinct dogmatic moulds the operation of the divine and human wills 
in salvation, while the very condition of all salvation is the eternal mystery 
of their union in an act of mutual and inexpressible love. This spirit of 
ultra-definition — of essential rationalism — was the corrupting inheritance of 
the new from the old theology ; and it is difficult to say, all things con- 
sidered, as we trace the melancholy history of Protestant dogmas, whether its 
fruits have been worse in the latter or in the former instance. The mists, it 
is true, have never again so utterly obscured the truth ; but that dimness, 
covering a fairer light, almost inspires the religious heart with a deeper 






" While thus claiming for Calvinism a higher scriptural character, it 
would yet be too much to say that Calvinism, any more than Lutheranism, 
or latterly Arminianism, was primarily the result of a fresh and living study 
of Scripture. Calvin, no doubt, went to Scripture. He is the greatest bibli- 
cal commentator, as he is the greatest biblical dogmatist of his age ; but his 
dogmas, for the most part, were not primarily suggested by Scripture; and as to 
his distinguishing dogma, this is eminently the case. Like Luther, he had been 
trained in the scholastic philosophy, and been fed on Augustine ; and it was 
no more possible for the one than for the other to get beyond the scholastic 
spirit or the Augustinian doctrine. An attentive study of the ' Institutes' 
reveals the presence of Augustine everywhere ; and great even as Calvin is in 
exegesis, his exegesis is mainly controlled by Augustinian dogmatic theory." f 

" This appeal to an earlier catholicity on the part of the reformed theolo- 
gies — this support in Augustine — beyond doubt greatly contributed to their 
success in their day. For few then ventured to doubt the authority of Augus- 
tinianism, and the theological spirit of the sixteenth century hardly at any 
point got beyond it. It was a natural source of triumph to the great Pro- 
testant confessions against the unsettled unbelief or more superficial theologies 
which they encountered, that they wielded so bold and consistent a weapon of 
logic, and appealed so largely to an authoritative scriptural interpretation. 
Calvinism could not out triumph on any such modes of reasoning or of biblical 
exegesis as then prevailed ; and so long as it continued to be merely a ques- 
tion of systems, and logic had it all its way, this triumph was secure. 

" But now that the question is changed, and logic is no longer mistress 
of the field ; now, when a spirit of interpreting Scripture which could have 



* Pp. 84-5. fP- 166. 



14 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay T. 

hardly been intelligible to Calvin generally asserts itself — a spirit which 
recognises a progress in Scripture itself — a diverse literature and moral growth 
in its component elements, and which at once looking backward with rever- 
ence and forward with faith, has learned a new audacity, or a new modesty, 
as we shall call it, according to our predilections, and while it accepts withal 
the mysteries of life and of death, refuses to submit them arbitrarily to the 
dictation of any mere logical principle ; now that the whole sphere of religious 
credence is differently apprehended, and the provinces of faith and of logical 
deduction are recognised as not merely incommensurate, but as radically dis- 
tinguished, — the whole case as to the triumphant position of Calvinism, or 
indeed any other theological system, is altered. An able writer in our day 
(Mansel, in his Bampton Lectures) has shown with convincing power what 
are the inevitably contradictory results of carrying the reasoning faculty with 
determining sway into the department of religious truth. The conclusions of 
that writer, sufficiently crushing as directed by him against all rationalistic 
systems, are to the full as conclusive against the competency of all theological 
systems whatever. The weapon of logical destructiveness which he has used 
with such energy, is a weapon of offence really against all religious dogmatism. 
What between the torture of criticism, and the slow but sure advance of moral 
idea, this dogmatism is losing all hold of the most living and earnest intelli- 
gence everywhere. And it seems no longer possible, under any new polemic 
form, to revive it. Men are weary of heterodoxy and of orthodoxy alike, and 
of the former in any arbitrary and dogmatic shape still more intolerably than 
the latter. The old Institutio Christianse Religionis no longer satisfies, and a 
new Institutio can never replace it. A second Calvin in theology is impossible. 
Men thirst not less for spiritual truth, but they no longer believe in the 
capacity of system to embrace and contain that truth, as in a reservoir, for 
successive generations. They must seek for it themselves afresh in the pages 
of Scripture, and the ever-dawning light of spiritual life, or they will simply 
neglect and put it past as an old story."* 

These extracts fully justify the statements we have made in 
regard to the scope and tendency of this book ; and in commenting 
upon them in order to show this, we shall speak of the theology 
of the Keformation and Calvinism as substantially identical ; not 
meaning by Calvinism the personal opinions of Calvin, but the 
leading features of the Calvinistic system of theology as distin- 
guished from the Arminian and Socinian systems. In this sense 
Calvinism may be fairly called the theology of the Reformation, 
as it was certainly, though with different degrees of accuracy and 
fulness, maintained by the great body of the Reformers, and pro- 
fessed in most of the confessions of the Reformed churches. We 



Pp. 167-9. 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 15 

never hesitate to call ourselves Calvinists, though there are some 
of Calvin's opinions which we reckon erroneous ; and in adopting 
this designation, we mean simply to convey the idea that we are 
firmly persuaded that the fundamental principles of the Calvinistic 
system of theology, as generally set forth in the symbolical books 
of churches usually reckoned Calvinistic, are taught, and can be 
proved to be taught, in Scripture, as the revealed truth of God. 
And here a practical difficulty at once arises in dealing with Dr 
Tulloch. If we were to judge of him solely from the statements 
contained in this book, we would have little hesitation in saying 
that he is not a Calvinist in the sense above explained. But of 
course we are aware that he has, like ourselves, subscribed a 
Calvinistic creed, and that he holds an office, the chief duty of 
which may be said to be to expound this creed. We have there- 
fore scarcely a right to say that he is not a Calvinist, unless 
he had said so more explicitly perhaps than he has done. And 
in anything we may say bearing on this point, we wish it to be 
understood that we make no categorical assertion as to what Dr 
Tulloch's theological opinions in point of fact are, and that we 
intend merely to set forth what seem to us to be the scope and 
tendency of the views indicated in this book. With this explana- 
tion, we have no hesitation in saying that we are unable to com- 
prehend how any intelligent Calvinist could have published the 
statements we have quoted ; and that they are plainly fitted to 
lead to the conclusion that the author has renounced, if he ever 
held, the theology of the Reformation. It is a significant fact, 
that Dr Tulloch, though a professor of theology, has not, from the 
beginning to the end of his book, given any distinct indication that 
he is a Calvinist, or made any profession of regarding the Reform- 
ers as having succeeded in the main in bringing out God's truth 
from His word. There are several statements which look like a 
profession of Calvinism, but which, when carefully examined, are 
clearly seen to come short of this. But we are not confined to 
negative materials. We are plainly told that Calvinism once 
triumphed, but that this triumph was temporary, and is long since 
over; that no theological system can now occupy a triumphant 
position, since we have at last reached a demonstration of the 
incompetency of all theological systems whatever. 

Dr Tulloch's position is pretty distinctly indicated in the some- 
what enigmatical deliverance, "The old 'Institutio Christianas Reli- 



18 LEADEES OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay T. 

gionis' no longer satisfies, and a new Institutio can never replace it." 
There is a sense in which we could assent to the notions suggested 
by this quotation. But in the sense in which Dr Tulloch evi- 
dently understands it, we regard it as unsound and dangerous. 
" The old ' Institutio Christian se Religionis' no longer satisfies." 
Every Calvinist will admit this to be true, if it be understood to 
mean merely, that there are views set forth in the " Institutes" of 
Calvin which can be proved from Scripture to be erroneous, and 
that the progress of discussion since his time has indicated defects 
existing in that work, and improvements that might be made upon 
it, as to the arrangement of the subjects, the mode in which several 
topics are presented, singly or in their relation to each other, the 
comparative prominence assigned to them, and the validity of all 
the proofs by which they are supported. There are points coming 
under these various heads, in which the " Institutes" do not now 
satisfy ; and we hold it to be a mark of the respect to which Calvin 
and the " Institutes" are entitled, to be prepared to specify the 
grounds of our dissatisfaction. But those things about the " Insti- 
tutes" which do not satisfy us are few and unimportant, and do 
not materially affect the present and permanent value of that great 
work. It is plainly in an entirely different sense from this that 
it no longer satisfies Dr Tulloch and other men of progress in the 
present day. He evidently regards it as having proved an entire 
failure in regard to its main substance, its principal contents or 
materials, and its leading design. The materials of which the 
" Institutes" are composed are, of course, just the leading doctrines 
of Scripture, according to the view which Calvinists, from Augus- 
tine to the present day, have always taken of their meaning and 
import. And the main question in judging of any work which 
professes to exhibit in a scientific or systematic form the leading 
principles of Christian theology must of necessity be, Are the 
materials of which it is composed, or the doctrines which it ex- 
pounds and defends, accordant in the main with Scripture ? Are 
they as a whole the views which Scripture teaches, and which it 
warrants and requires us to believe, as immutable truth resting 
upon divine authority ! Every Calvinist who has read Calvin's 
" Institutes," of course, believes that the .materials of which that 
work is composed are in the main the doctrines of God's word, 
and therefore possessed of unchangeable verity. Most Calvinists 
have also been of opinion, that the great doctrines of Christian 



Essat I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 17 

theology are upon the whole about as well arranged, as ably and 
accurately expounded, and as satisfactorily and conclusively de- 
fended in Calvin's " Institutes" as they ever have been or can be. 
We do not exact of every Calvinist that he must concur in this 
commendation of Calvin's "Institutes." But, of course, no man 
can call himself a Calvinist unless he believe that tne leading 
doctrines set forth in the " Institutes" are indeed taught by God 
in His word. And it is not very likely that any man could be 
found, who, while professing to hold the Calvinistic doctrines 
taught in the " Institutes," should at the same time assert that 
either he himself, or any one else, could expound them more ably 
and defend them more conclusively than Calvin has done. 

But it is of comparatively small importance in what light the 
" Institutes" ought to be regarded, viewed merely as a specimen 
of Calvin's powers and achievements. The only vital question is 
this — Are the leading doctrines taught in the " Institutes" true 
and scriptural % Was the theology of Calvin, in its fundamental 
principles, correctly derived from the word of God ? This is a vital 
question. We answer it in the affirmative, and we consider our- 
selves warranted in asserting that Dr Tulloch has answered it in 
the negative. There is, as was natural in the circumstances, a 
good deal of vagueness and confusion in his statements upon this 
subject. It was scarcely to be expected that he would at first 
speak out in an explicit and manly way. Men of progress in 
theology usually require to grope their way for a time, through 
hedges and along bye- ways. But with all the vagueness and 
confusion which characterize his statements, he has, we think, 
afforded sufficient grounds for charging him with maintaining, 

1st, That the main features of the theology of the Reforma- 
tion, the leading doctrines of the Calvinistic system, are not 
revealed to us in the word of God. 

2d, That the Reformers erred in their whole theological system, 
because they had erroneous notions of the true province of logic, 
of the object and design of the sacred Scriptures, and of the way 
and manner in which they ought to be interpreted and applied in 
the formation of our religious opinions. 

3c/, That the crude and erroneous notions of the Reformers in 
regard to the province of logic, and the method of explaining and 
applying Scripture, being corrected and taken away, it is now a 
fixed and settled thing that all theological systems are incompetent. 

VOL. I. 2 



18 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

We believe that these three propositions exhibit accurately the 
sum and substance of Dr Tulloch's teaching upon the most im- 
portant subject touched on in his lectures. It would afford us 
sincere gratification if Dr Tulloch could and would repudiate these 
views, and show that we had no sufficient grounds for imputing 
them to him. But this, we fear, is hopeless ; and the next best 
thing would be, that he should plainly admit that he holds these 
positions in substance, and having thus come into the open arena, 
should boldly and manfully defend his convictions. The reputa- 
tion of the Reformers, the settlement of any questions that may 
be started about the amount of the commendation that should be 
bestowed upon them, and about the grounds on which it should 
be based, — all this is insignificant. But the question of the truth 
or falsehood of the theology of the Reformation is too important 
to be trifled with. There may turn out to be nothing formidable 
in the attack now made upon it ; but, from the magnitude of the 
interests involved, we like always to see who are the assailants, 
and what means of assault they have provided. 

A combination seems to exist at present for the purpose of 
undermining and exploding the theology of the Reformation, 
without meeting it fairly and openly in the field of argument. 
A man of higher standing than Dr Tulloch has yet reached, one 
who has rendered many important services to the cause of Chris- 
tian truth, Mr Isaac Taylor, has lent a helping hand to this object, 
by publishing (anonymously) the following statement : — 

" The creeds and the confessions of the Reformation era were, indeed, with 
scrupulous care based upon the authority of Holy Scripture, and, looking at 
them simply as they stood related to the manifold corruptions of the twelve 
centuries preceding, they might well claim to be scriptural. But in what 
manner had they been framed ? A certain class of texts having been assumed 
as the groundwork of Christian belief, then a scheme of theology is put 
together accordingly, whence, by the means of the deductive logic, all separate 
articles of faith are to be derived. As to any passages of Scripture which 
might seem to be of another class, or which do not easily fall into their places 
in this scheme, they were either ignored, or they were controlled, and this to 
any extent that might be asked for by the stern necessities of the syllogistic 
method."* 

Dr Tulloch has not put forth anything against the Reformers 
so discreditable as this, but he evidently occupies ground the same 



North British Review, No. li. p. 60. 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 19 

in substance, so far as concerns the erroneousness both of the 
process by which they investigated divine truth, and of the results 
which they reached. He cannot, indeed, be so forgetful of the 
history and writings of the Reformers as to be capable of believ- 
ing what Mr Taylor has said about a " certain class of texts." 
But in all other respects there is a wonderful harmony between 
them. They concur not only in the belief that the theology of 
the Reformation is fundamentally unsound and untenable, but 
also in their leading views of the errors attaching to the process 
by which this erroneous result was reached. They both think 
that it was the " deductive logic" that was the main cause of all 
the mischief, combined with certain erroneous notions of the way 
in which the Scriptures ought to be used and applied, meaning 
by this, apparently, just the doctrine of inspiration as it has been 
usually held by the Christian church, and its immediate conse- 
quences. They both expect an entirely new theology, which is 
to replace the superannuated logical theology of the Reformation. 
They expect this first from abandoning the deductive logic, and 
then from the introduction of new modes of biblical exegesis. 
Mr Taylor, indeed, held out to the world the prospect of a new 
" exegetical method," which was to work wonders in reforming 
theology. We are not aware that this exegetical method has yet 
made its appearance. But Dr Tulloch speaks as if the new and 
improved process of investigating divine truth, and of explaining 
and applying the Bible, were already in operation, and had already 
succeeded not only in bringing down Calvinism to the dust, but 
even in doing something to introduce a simpler and sounder 
theology. In the quotation we have given from him, he calls it a 
certain " spirit of interpreting Scripture," which he describes in 
terms very magniloquent, but not such as to convey to us any 
very definite idea of what this spirit is, or where it is to be found. 
We would like to know something about this " spirit of interpret- 
ing Scripture," which is to work such wonders and to effect such 
improvements in theology. But as Dr Tulloch assures us that it 
" could hardly have been intelligible to Calvin," we fear we must 
renounce all hope of ever catching a glimpse of its import. 

Dr Tulloch's work contains no theological discussion, and 
therefore we are not called upon to engage in theological discussion 
in reviewing it. There is no distinct specification of what it is in 
the theology of the Reformation, or in the system of Calvinism, 



20 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

which is unsound and untenable. There is no specification of 
what it was that was erroneous in those old modes of reasoning 
or of biblical exegesis, which led to the temporary triumph of 
Calvinism, or of what are the grounds of that new "spirit of 
interpreting Scripture," which has demolished Calvinism and in- 
troduced a sounder, that is, a more scanty and obscure, theology. 
We do not refer to the absence of anything of this sort as if it 
were a defect in a book which does not profess to discuss theo- 
logical topics. We refer to it for the purpose, first, of expressing 
a doubt whether it was quite right and fair in Dr Tulloch to in- 
troduce what has so unfavourable a bearing upon the theology 
generally professed in Scotland, without entering into theological 
discussion, or setting forth with some fulness the grounds of the 
views expressed ; and secondly, of showing that we are not called 
on, in reviewing Dr Tulloch' s book, to engage in theological dis- 
cussion, since he has not given us anything distinct and substantial 
to answer. 

The nearest approach to anything like definiteness wdiich Dr 
Tulloch makes under this general head of the theology of the 
Reformation, is an allegation to the effect that the Reformers 
formed their system of doctrine by carrying to an unwarranted 
length the practice of drawing inferences from Scripture state- 
ments, and by exercising greatly too much their logical faculties 
in classifying, combining, and expanding the materials which 
Scripture affords. But even this is only a vague generality, of no 
real value or use, apart from its proved applicability to actual 
processes of investigation which have been adopted by individuals 
or bodies of men, and to actual theological results which have been 
brought out. No one can well dispute, that men are entitled and 
bound to use their intellectual powers, not only in investigating 
the meaning of particular statements, but in classifying and com- 
bining a number of statements, in order to bring out as the result 
the full teaching of Scripture upon the subject towdiich the state- 
ments relate, and that we are to receive, as resting upon divine 
authority, not only what is "expressly set down in Scripture," 
but also what " may, by good and necessary consequence, be de- 
duced from Scripture." It is admitted, on the other hand, that 
men have often gone too far in making deductions from scrip- 
tural statements, and especially, what is with many a great bug- 
bear in the present day, in making deductions from doctrines 



Essay L] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 21 

assumed to be already established, upon the principle of what is 
sometimes called the analogy of faith. But though these are 
dangers to be guarded against, we fear that no rules can be laid 
down, marking out distinctly what is warrantable and legitimate 
in these respects and what is not; and therefore no decision upon 
these points can be founded upon mere vague general declamation 
about dangers and excesses. Each case in which error, either in 
the process adopted or in the result brought out, is alleged, must 
be judged of and decided upon its own merits. The theology of 
the Reformers is not to be set aside merely because men have 
often gone to an extreme in making deductions from scriptural 
statements, nor even because they themselves have sometimes 
erred in this respect. We insist that their theology, as a whole, 
and every doctrine which enters into their system, shall be judged 
of fairly and fully by the standard of Scripture, and of Scripture 
used and applied according to its real character and design. We 
embrace the theology of the Reformation just because we think 
we can prove, that all the particular doctrines which constitute it 
are taught in Scripture, rightly interpreted and applied ; and 
while, on the one hand, we undertake the responsibility of assert- 
ing and proving this, we must, on the other hand, insist that any 
one who repudiates the theology of the Reformation, shall dis- 
tinctly specify what the errors of the system are, and bring forward 
the evidence from Scripture that they are errors. 

But Dr Tulloch assures us* that Mr Mansel, in his " Bamp- 
ton Lectures," has conclusively established the incompetency of 
all theological systems whatever. Mr Mansel has not proved, 
and has not professed to prove, this. The fundamental principle 
of Mr Mansel* s book is really and in substance just the doctrine 
which has always been a familiar commonplace with orthodox 
divines, viz. that the human faculties are unable adequately to 
comprehend all truths and all their relations, and that men have 
therefore no right to make their full comprehension of doctrines, 
or their perception of the accordance of doctrines with each other, 
the test or standard of their truth. And the principal merit of the 
work is, that it brings out this very important but very obvious 
and familiar principle in a philosophic dress, establishes it upon 
philosophic grounds, and connects it with the best philosophy of 



* P. 169. 



22 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

the age. The most legitimate and valuable application of Mr 
Mansel's principles, so far as theological subjects are concerned, is to 
expose the unwarrantable presumption of the objections commonly 
adduced against the leading doctrines that seemed to be taught 
in Scripture, on the ground of their alleged contrariety to reason. 
We admit that his principles would also preclude the competency 
of founding a positive argument in support of the mysterious 
doctrines of theology, on what may be called rationalistic grounds 
derived from their intrinsic nature or mutual relation. But this 
is not sufficient to warrant Dr Tulloch's allegation that they 
establish the incompetency of all theological systems, because it is 
not by any such unwarrantable rationalistic process that theological 
systems are formed. The advocates of every theological system 
profess to find in Scripture all the materials of which their system 
is composed, and to be prepared to defend every doctrine they 
hold, and their system as a whole, by the authority of Scripture. 
The Reformers professed to derive their whole theology from 
Scripture, and undertook to produce evidence from Scripture for 
every doctrine they inculcated. And so do all Calvinists still. 
They may find some confirmation of their doctrines individually, 
and of their system as a whole, in considerations derived from 
natural reason and the exercise of their logical faculties. But 
they refer to Scripture as affording the chief direct positive 
proof of all they teach, and they undertake to show that the 
materials which Scripture furnishes, rightly and rationally used 
and applied, establish every part of their theological system. 
Calvinists do not pretend that, when they have proved some 
one of their doctrines from Scripture, they can derive all their 
other doctrines from this one by mere logical deduction. They 
profess to produce direct positive proof from Scripture suffi- 
cient to establish every one of them, and to have recourse to 
rational considerations only for confirming the proof, and espe- 
cially for answering, or rather disposing of objections. In regard, 
then, to every one of the doctrines which enter into our theolo- 
gical system, we profess to show that it accurately expresses or 
embodies the sum and substance of what is asserted or indicated 
in Scripture upon the point. There is nothing in Mansel's 
" Bampton Lectures," or anywhere else, which proves, or even 
appears to prove, that there is anything in this process which is 
incompetent or unwarrantable, or involves a transgression of the 



Essay I] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 23 

just " limits of religious thought." If there be men who mainly 
rest the truth of their doctrines individually, or of their systems 
as a whole, upon any other ground than this reasonable and com- 
petent application of scriptural materials, they cannot plead on 
their behalf the example of the Reformers, or any of the best 
defenders of Calvinism. We base all the doctrines of our system 
upon statements contained in Scripture ; we undertake to prove 
them by a fair and rational application of the materials which 
Scripture furnishes ; and there is no ground for alleging that the 
processes required in doing this, whether conducted so as to lead 
in point of fact to a correct result in any particular case or not, 
go beyond the fair and legitimate exercise of men's mental powers. 
We are entitled to demand that our scriptural proofs shall be 
fairly faced and disposed of, in place of the whole subject being 
set aside as incompetent, upon the ground of a piece of palpably 
irrelevant metaphysics. 

These remarks may be illustrated by selecting an instance of 
a particular doctrine ; and we shall choose with this view the great 
doctrine of justification, which in some aspects may be regarded 
as the great distinguishing feature of the theology of the Refor- 
mation. 

Dr Tulloch has given* a statement of this great doctrine of 
Luther in a somewhat mystical and not very intelligible style, to 
which it is not worth while to advert. What we have to do with 
at present is this, that he complains that Luther and the de- 
fenders of the theology of the Reformation, in place of being 
contented with some vague generalities upon this subject, should, 
by definition and exposition, have drawn it out into precise and 
definite propositions, alleging in substance that the whole process 
by which this is done is unwarrantable and incompetent, and that 
the result is not truth, but error. Let us take one of these pre- 
cise and definite descriptions of justification, and see how the case 
stands ; and in order to give Dr Tulloch every advantage, we 
shall select it from a period when the odious process of what he 
calls " ultra-definition" had been carried somewhat farther than 
was done by the Reformers, and when, of course, all that he 
reckons so objectionable was most fully developed. About the 
middle of the seventeenth century, an assembly of divines put 

* P. 82. 



24 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

forth the following statement of what they believed to be taught 
in Scripture on the subject of justification : — 

" Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth ; not "by in- 
fusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting 
and accepting their persons as righteous ; not for anything wrought in them, 
or done by them,- but for Christ's sake alone ; not by imputing faith itself, the 
act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteous- 
ness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they 
receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they 
have not of themselves — it is the gift of God." * 

Every one acquainted with the history of theological discus- 
sion, knows that this remarkable statement not only affirms posi- 
tively and explicitly certain great truths, but by plain implication 
denies certain errors opposed to them, which have been held by 
Papists and Arminians to be taught in Scripture ; and the ques- 
tion raised by it is this, — Are the doctrines asserted, or the doc- 
trines denied, here, revealed to us in Scripture as true ? It is 
quite possible that some men may refuse to adopt either of these 
alternatives, and may contend that Scripture teaches a third doc- 
trine upon the subject of justification, different from either, — or 
that it does not teach any definite doctrine whatever upon the 
points here brought under consideration, and furnishes no mate- 
rials for an intelligent and rational decision among the contend- 
ing creeds. Our position upon the subject is clear and decided, 
and we wish to understand distinctly the position of any one 
whose views upon these matters we may be called upon to con- 
sider. We believe that the statement quoted from the " Confession 
of Faith" presents an accurate embodiment of the sum and sub- 
stance of wdiat Scripture warrants and requires us to believe 
upon the subject of justification ; and we hold ourselves bound to 
produce, in suitable circumstances, the Scripture proof that all 
the Protestant Calvinistic doctrines there asserted are true, and 
that all the Popish and Arminian doctrines there denied are false. 
In what precise way Dr Tulloch would define his position in 
regard to this matter, we can scarcely venture to say. We pre- 
sume he will not affirm, that he believes either the one or the 
other set of opinions to be taught in Scripture, and to be 
binding upon men's consciences. He is not likely, we should 
suppose, to put forth a third set of opinions upon these points, 

* Westminster Confession of Faith, c. xi. 



Essay L] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 25 

different from the other two. The ground which, it would seem, 
he must take, in order to escape from the degradation of profess- 
ing, in this nineteenth century, a precise set of opinions upon 
justification, is to maintain that Scripture does not furnish mate- 
rials for laying down any such definite doctrines upon the subject. 
And this can be established only in one or other of two ways : 
either by producing some direct general proof of it a priori, as an 
abstract position ; or by following the method of exhaustion, and 
proving in detail that not one of the attempts which have been 
made to deduce a definite doctrine of justification from scriptural 
materials has succeeded. There is thus a vast deal to be done be- 
yond what has ever yet been attempted, before the great doctrine 
of justification as set forth in the confessions of the Reformed 
churches can be exploded, and the way opened up for restoring that 
obscurity and confusion in regard to the way of a sinner's justifi- 
cation, which the Reformers did so much to dissipate, and which the 
men of progress in the present day seem so anxious to bring back. 
There is one theological topic on which Dr Tulloch has given 
something like a deliverance, and it may be worth while to advert 
to it as a specimen of the new or advanced theology. In treating 
of the controversy between Luther and Erasmus on the subject 
of the bondage or servitude of the will, he gives the following sage 
and satisfactory deliverance regarding it : — 

" It would be idle for us to euter into the merits of this controversy ; and 
in truth, its merits are no longer to us what they were to the combatants 
themselves. The course of opinion has altered this as well as many other 
points of dispute, so that under the same names we no longer really discuss 
the same things. There are probably none, with any competent knowledge of 
the subject, who would care any longer to defend the exact position either of 
Luther or of Erasmus. Both are right and both are wrong. Man is free, and 
yet grace is needful; and the philosophic refinements of Erasmus, and the wild 
exaggerations of Luther, have become mere historic dust, which would only 
raise a cloud by being disturbed."* 

And in referring to the same point as controverted between Calvin 
and Pighius, he disposes of it in this way : — 

" So far as the merits of the controversy are concerned, it cannot be said 
that he is any more successful than the German Reformer. He is here and 
everywhere more simple and cautious in his statements, but his cold reitera- 
tions and evasions really no more touch the obvious difficulties than Luther's 
heated paradoxes."! 

* P. 52. f P. 123. 



26 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

The great controversy, then, about the bondage of the will, to 
which the Reformers attached so much importance in their dis- 
cussions with the Romanists, and the Calvinists in their discussions 
with the Arminians, Dr Tulloch pronounces to have been a mere 
logomachy, — a question of no practical importance whatever, — ■ 
unworthy, it would seem, of receiving any serious consideration. 
Here, again, we fear that Dr Tulloch's deliverance must be held 
to imply a denial that the doctrine taught by the Reformers is 
really revealed to us in Scripture. That doctrine, as set forth by 
the Westminster divines, is, that " man, by his fall into a state of 
sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accom- 
panying salvation." Luther, in defending this doctrine in reply 
to Erasmus, has made some rash and exaggerated statements, 
which no one adopts. But Calvin, in defending the same doctrine 
in reply to Pighius, has, as Dr Tulloch admits, avoided these 
excesses. And, independently of all peculiarities of individuals, 
we would like to know how Dr Tulloch would deal with the doc- 
trine as stated by the Westminster divines. Is that too a mere 
logomachy, which is just as true and as false as the opposite doc- 
trine taught by Papists and Arminians? Are there really no 
materials in Scripture for deciding either for or against the great 
Reformation doctrine of the bondage or servitude of the will of 
fallen man to sin ? Is the whole of the process of investigating 
the meaning of Scripture for the decision of that question, as it 
has been conducted on both sides, unwarrantable and illegitimate? 
Or is there really an utter want of materials in Scripture for 
determining the question, either on the one side or on the other ? 
The way in which Dr Tulloch has spoken in regard to this im- 
portant doctrine of the Reformation suggests and warrants such 
questions as these ; and we would like to see him meet them, as 
well as those formerly proposed in regard to justification, openly 
and manfully, in order that we might, if possible, learn something 
about that " spirit of interpreting Scripture," of which Dr Tulloch 
discourses so magniloquently and unintelligibly, and by which 
Scripture seems to be rendered so inadequate to be " a light unto 
our feet and a lamp unto our path." 

There is another important subject, in regard to which the 
Reformers have been generally regarded as having rendered good 
service to mankind, viz. the right organization of the Christian 
church. This, in one aspect, might be comprehended under the 



Essay L] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 27 

general head of theology or doctrine, as it consists essentially in 
bringing out a portion of the mind and will of God as revealed in 
His word. But it is common, and in some respects useful, to dis- 
tinguish them, and Dr Tulloch has given them a separate treat- 
ment. The questions to be entertained and settled upon this 
subject are these : Has God given us in His word any indica- 
tions of His will w T ith respect to the worship and government of 
His church, which are binding in all ages ? and if He has, what 
are they ? 

It is generally conceded that the Reformers restored the church 
to a large measure of apostolic purity and simplicity with respect 
to worship and government. But it cannot be said that they 
reckoned this matter so important as the restoration of sound 
doctrine, or that they were to so large an extent of one mind in the 
conclusions to which they came. In this as well as in theology, 
more strictly so called, Calvin was the great master-mind, who 
stamped his impress most distinctly upon the church of that and of 
every subsequent period. His own contributions to the establish- 
ment of principle and the development of truth, were greater in 
regard to church organization than in regard to any other depart- 
ment of discussion, — of such magnitude and importance, indeed, in 
their bearing upon the whole subject of the church, as naturally 
to suggest a comparison with the achievements of Sir Isaac Newton 
in unfolding the true principles of the solar system. The Christian 
church is mainly indebted to Calvin, much more than to any other 
man, for bringing out distinctly, pressing upon general attention, 
and establishing, the following great principles : — 

1st, That it is unwarrantable and unlawful to introduce into 
the government and worship of the church anything which has 
not the positive sanction of Scripture. 

2d, That the church, though it consists properly and primarily 
only of the elect or of believers, and though, therefore, visibility 
and organization are not essential, as Papists allege they are, to 
its existence, is under a positive obligation to be organized, if pos- 
sible, as a visible society, and to be organized in all things, so far 
as possible — its office-bearers, ordinances, worship, and general 
administration and arrangements — in accordance with what is 
prescrfbed or indicated upon these points in the New Testament. 

3d, That the fundamental principles, or leading features, of 
what is usually called Presbyterian church government, are indi- 



28 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

cated with sufficient clearness in the New Testament as perma- 
nently binding upon the church. 

4/7*, That the church should be altogether free and independent 
of civil control, and should conduct its own distinct and independent 
government by presbyteries and synods, while the civil power is 
called upon to afford it protection and support. 

5th, That human laws, whether about civil or ecclesiastical 
things, and whether proceeding from civil or ecclesiastical autho- 
rities, do not per se — i.e. irrespective of their being sanctioned 
by the authority of God — impose an obligation upon the con- 
science. 

Calvin professed to find all these principles more or less clearly 
taught in Scripture ; and we have no doubt that he succeeded in 
proving that they are all sanctioned by the word of God, and 
that thus they may be said to embody the permanent binding 
constitution of the Christian church. We do not say that none 
of these principles had ever been enunciated till Calvin proclaimed 
them. But some of them had never before been so clearly and 
explicitly set forth. None of them had ever before been so fully 
brought out in their true meaning, and in their complete evidence. 
And the presentation of them all in combination, expounded and 
defended with consummate ability, and at the same time with 
admirable moderation and good sense, furnishes a contribution to 
the right permanent organization of the Christian church such as 
no man ever made before, and no man could have an opportunity 
of making again. Calvin may be said, in a sense, to have settled 
permanently the constitution of the Christian church, not by 
assuming any jurisdiction over it, or by any mere exercise of his 
own talents and sagacity, but simply because God was pleased to 
make him the instrument of bringing out from the sacred Scrip- 
tures the great leading principles bearing upon the organization 
of the church, which till that time had been very much over- 
looked, and had been far from exerting their proper influence. 
We believe that the leading principles which Calvin inculcated 
in regard to the organization of the church, never have been, 
and never can be, successfully assailed ; while there is certainly 
no possibility of any one being able again to bring out from 
Scripture a contribution of anything like equal value. 

Of course, everything depends upon the settlement of the 
question, whether or not these principles are taught in Scripture, 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 29 

as truth revealed for the permanent guidance of the church. 
The general process by which this is to be investigated and ascer- 
tained, is perfectly competent and legitimate in all its features, 
though opposite conclusions have been brought out by different 
parties who professed to follow it. It has been contended, 

1 sty That Scripture sanctions the great principles above stated, 
as the permanent constitution of the church. 

2d, That Scripture teaches something which is different from, 
or exclusive of, or opposed to, these principles, upon all or most 
of the points to which they relate. 

3d, That little or nothing bearing upon matters of worship 
and government is prescribed to or imposed upon the church, 
and that there are no adequate materials for deciding upon the 
truth or falsehood of the two preceding positions. 

Something plausible may be adduced in support of each of 
these three positions. But the question is, Which of them is 
true ? which has really the sanction of Scripture ? We embrace 
the first of them, and profess to be able to establish it by an accu- 
rate exposition and a reasonable application of materials which 
Scripture furnishes. The third of these positions is in substance 
that which is maintained by Dr Tulloch and other latitudinarians. 
He seems to think, that except perhaps in regard to some great 
general principles, so evident as scarcely to leave room for a dif- 
ference of opinion, the church is left at liberty to settle questions 
about government and worship for herself, in the way which she 
may think best at the time and in the circumstances ; that the 
views upon these subjects brought out by Calvin and the Refor- 
mers, though improvements upon the previous condition of things, 
and well suited to the times, furnish nothing like a pattern of what 
ought to be the permanent state of the church ; and that Scripture 
cannot be shown to afford materials for deciding those contro- 
versies which have been carried on between different churches 
about questions of government and worship. These are the sort 
of notions which he indicates plainly enougli in such passages as 
the following : — 

" There are two distinct views that may be taken of this part of Calvin's 
work. It presents itself, on the one hand, as a moral influence — a conserva- 
tive spiritual discipline suited to the time, as it was called forth by it ; and, 
on the other hand, as a new theory, or definite reconstitution of the church. 
In the first point of view it is almost wholly admirable ; in the second, it 



30 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

will be found unable to maintain itself any more than the Catholic theory 
which it Bo far displaced."* "It is a very different subject that is before us 
when we turn to contemplate the theocracy of Calvin, in its formal expres- 
sion and basis as a new and definite outline of church government. In this 
respect he made more an apparent than a real advance upon the old Catholic 
theocracy. He took up the old principle from a different and higher basis, 
but in a scarcely less arbitrary and external manner. There is a kingdom of 
divine truth and righteousness, he said, and Scripture, not the priesthood, is 
its basis. The divine word, and not Roman tradition, is the foundation of 
the spiritual commonwealth. So far all right ; so far Calvin had got hold of 
a powerful truth against the corrupt historical pretensions of Popery. But 
he at once went much further than this, and said, not tentatively or in a 
spirit of rational freedom, but dogmatically and in a spirit of arbitrariness, 
tainted with the very falsehood from whose thraldom he sought to deliver 
men, 'This is the form of the divine kingdom presented in Scripture.' "f 
" Presbyterianism became the peculiar church order of a free Protestantism, 
carrying with it everywhere, singularly enough, as one of the very agencies of 
its free moral influence, an inquisitorial authority resembling that of the Cal- 
vinistic consistory. It rested, beyond doubt, on a true divine order, else it 
never could have attained this historical success. But it also involved from 
the beginning a corrupting stain in the very way in which it put forth its 
divine warrant. It not merely asserted itself to be wise and conformable to 
Scripture, and therefore divine, but it claimed the direct impress of a divine 
right for all its details and applications. This gave it strength and influence 
in a rude and uncritical age, but it planted in it from the first an element of 
corruption. The great conception which it embodied was impaired at the 
root by being fixed in a stagnant and inflexible system, which became iden- 
tified with the conception as not only equally but specially divine. "J "But 
were not these 'elements,' some will say, really biblical? did not Calvin 
establish his church polity and church discipline upon Scripture ? and is not 
this a warrantable course ? Assuredly not in the spirit in which he did it. 
The fundamental source of the mistake is here. The Christian Scriptures are 
a revelation of divine truth, and not a revelation of church polity. They not 
only do not lay down the outline of such a polity, but they do not even give 
the adequate and conclusive hints of one ; and for the best of all reasons, that 
it would have been entirely contrary to the spirit of Christianity to have 
done so ; and because, in point of fact, the conditions of human progress do 
not admit of the imposition of any unvarying system of government, ecclesias- 
tical or civil. The system adapts itself to the life, everywhere expands with 
it or narrows with it, but is nowhere in any particular form the absolute 
condition of life. A definite outline of church polity, therefore, or a definite 
code of social ethics, is nowhere given in the New Testament, and the spirit 
of it is entirely hostile to the absolute assertion of either the one or the 
other." § 

* P. 175. f P. 179. t P. 181. § Pp. 182-3. 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 31 

In order to establish his position, Dr Tulloch is bound either 
to produce Scripture evidence in support of the general notions 
or maxims on which he bases it, or else to prove in detail the 
utter inadequacy of all the attempts which have been made to 
show, that any definite views in regard to government and worship 
ought permanently to guide the churches of Christ. We profess 
to establish our position by both these classes of argument. In 
so far as we profess to lay down any general rules, whether of an 
imperative or of a prohibitory character, and in so far as we urge 
any specific arrangements as permanently binding, we undertake 
to produce sufficient evidence from Scripture for all we assert or 
require. Dr Tulloch has not entered upon any defence of the 
ground he has taken upon this subject; and therefore we are 
not called upon to discuss it. But as the loose and dangerous 
views which he has put forth are very prevalent in the present 
day, and as they are by no means destitute of plausibility, while, 
at the same time, w T e are persuaded that a large share of the 
favour they have met with is to be ascribed to ignorance and 
misapprehension, we shall take the opportunity of making a few 
explanatory observations regarding them. 

Of the views generally held by the Reformers on the subject 
of the organization of the church, there are two which have been 
always very offensive to men of a loose and latitudinarian ten- 
dency, — viz. the alleged unlawfulness of introducing into the 
worship and government of the church anything which is not 
positively warranted by Scripture, and the permanent binding 
obligation of a particular form of church government. The 
second of these principles may be regarded, in one aspect of it, 
as comprehended in the first. But it may be proper to make a 
few observations upon them separately, in the order in which they 
have now been stated. 

The Lutheran and Anglican sections of the Reformers held 
a somewhat looser view upon these subjects than was approved of 
by Calvin. They generally held that the church might warrant- 
ably introduce innovations into its government and worship, which 
might seem fitted to be useful, provided it could not be shown 
that there was anything in Scripture which expressly prohibited 
or discountenanced them, thus laying the onus probandi, in so far 
as Scripture is concerned, upon those who opposed the introduction 
of innovations. The Calvinistic section of the Reformers, follow- 



32 LEADERS OP THE REFORMATION. [Essay T. 

ing their great master, adopted a stricter rule, and were of opinion 
that there are sufficiently plain indications in Scripture itself, that 
it was Christ's mind and will that nothing should be introduced 
into the government and worship of the church, unless a positive 
warrant for it could be found in Scripture. This principle was 
adopted and acted upon by the English Puritans and the Scottish 
Presbyterians ; and we are persuaded that it is the only true and 
safe principle applicable to this matter. 

The principle is in a sense a very wide and sweeping one. 
But it is purely prohibitory or exclusive ; and the practical effect 
of it, if it were fully carried out, would just be to leave the church 
in the condition in which it was left by the apostles, in so far as 
we have any means of information, — a result, surely, which need 
not be very alarming, except to those who think that they them- 
selves have very superior powers for improving and adorning the 
church by their inventions. The principle ought to be understood 
in a common-sense way, and we ought to be satisfied with reason- 
able evidence of its truth. Those who dislike this principle, from 
whatever cause, usually try to run us into difficulties by putting 
a very stringent construction upon it, and thereby giving it an 
appearance of absurdity, or by demanding an unreasonable amount 
of evidence to establish it. The principle must be interpreted and 
explained in the exercise of common sense. One obvious modifi- 
cation of it is suggested in the first chapter of the " Westminster 
Confession," where it is acknowledged " that there are some cir- 
cumstances concerning the worship of God and government of 
the church common to human actions and societies, which are 
to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, 
according to the general rules of the word, which are always to 
be observed." But even this distinction between things and cir- 
cumstances cannot always be applied very certainly ; that is, cases 
have occurred in which there might be room for a difference 
of opinion, whether a proposed regulation or arrangement was a 
distinct thing in the way of innovation, or merely a circumstance 
attaching to an authorized thing and requiring to be regulated. 
Difficulties and differences of opinions may arise about details, 
even when sound judgment and good sense are brought to bear 
upon the interpretation and application of the principle ; but this 
affords no ground for denying or doubting the truth or soundness 
of the principle itself. 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 33 

In regard to questions of this sort there are two opposite 
extremes, into which one-sided minds are apt to fall, and both of 
which ought to be guarded against. The one is to stick rigidly 
and doggedly to a general principle, refusing to admit that any 
limitations or qualifications ought to be permitted in applying it ; 
and the other is to reject the principle altogether, as if it had no 
truth or soundness about it, merely because it manifestly cannot 
be carried out without some exceptions and modifications, and 
because difficulties may be raised about some of the details of its 
application which cannot always be very easily solved. Both 
these extremes have been often exhibited in connection with this 
principle. Both of them are natural, but both are unreason- 
able, and both indicate a want of sound judgment. The right 
course is to ascertain, if possible, whether or not the principle 
be true ; and if there seem to be sufficient evidence of its 
truth, then to seek to make a reasonable and judicious applica- 
tion of it. 

With regard to the Scripture evidence of the truth of the 
principle, we do not allege that it is very direct, explicit, and 
overwhelming. It is not of a kind likely to satisfy the coarse, 
material literalists, who can see nothing in the Bible but what is 
asserted in express terms. But it is, we think, amply sufficient 
to convince those who, without any prejudice against it, are ready 
to submit their minds to the fair impression of what Scripture 
seems to have been intended to teach. The general principle of 
the unlawfulness of introducing into the government and worship 
of the church anything which cannot be shown to have positive 
scriptural sanction, can, we think, be deduced from the word of 
God by good and necessary consequence. We do not mean at 
present to adduce the proof, but merely to indicate where it is to 
be found. The truth of this principle, as a general rule for the 
guidance of the church, is plainly enough involved in what Scrip- 
ture teaches concerning its own sufficiency and perfection as a 
rule of faith and practice, concerning God's exclusive right to 
determine in what way He ought to be worshipped, concerning 
Christ's exclusive right to settle the constitution, laws, and arrange- 
ments of His kingdom, concerning the unlawfulness of will-wor- 
ship, and concerning the utter unfitness of men for the function 
which they have so often and so boldly usurped in this matter. 
The fair application of these various scriptural views taken in 

VOL. I. 3 



34 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

combination, along with the utter want of any evidence on the 
other side, seems to us quite sufficient to shut out the lawfulness 
of introducing the inventions of men into the government and 
worship of the Christian church. 

There is no force in the presumption, that, because so little 
in regard to the externals of the church is fixed by scriptural 
authority, therefore much was left to be regulated by human 
wisdom, as experience might suggest or as the varying condition 
of the church might seem to require. For, on the contrary, every 
view suggested by Scripture of Christianity and the church, indi- 
cates that Christ intended His church to remain permanently in 
the condition of simplicity as to outward arrangements, in which 
His apostles were guided to leave it. And never certainly has 
there been a case in which it has been more fully established by 
experience, that the foolishness of God, as the apostle says, is 
wiser than men ; that what seems to many men very plausible and 
very wise, is utter folly, and tends to frustrate the very objects 
which it was designed to serve. Of the innumerable inventions 
of men introduced into the government and worship of the church, 
without any warrant from Scripture, but professedly as being 
indicated by the wisdom of experience, or by the Christian con- 
sciousness of a particular age or country, to be fitted to promote 
the great ends of the church, not one can with any plausibility 
be shown to have had a tendency to contribute, or to have in fact 
contributed, to the end contemplated ; while, taken in the mass, — 
and of course no limitation can be put to them unless the principle 
we maintain be adopted, — they have inflicted fearful injury upon 
the best interests of the church. There is a remarkable statement 
of Dr Owen's on this subject, which has been often quoted, but 
not more frequently than it deserves ; it is this — " The principle 
that the church hath power to institute any thing or ceremony 
belonging to the worship of God, either as to matter or manner, 
beyond the observance of such circumstances as necessarily attend 
such ordinances as Christ himself hath instituted, lies at the 
bottom of all the horrible superstition and idolatry, of all the con- 
fusion, blood, persecution, and wars, that have for so long a season 
spread themselves over the face of the Christian world." It is no 
doubt very gratifying to the pride of men to think that they, in 
the exercise of their wisdom, brought to bear upon the experience 
of the past history of the church, or (to accommodate our statement 



Essay L] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 35 

to the prevalent views and phraseology of the present day) in the 
exercise of their own Christian consciousness, their own spiritual 
tact and discernment, can introduce improvements upon the 
nakedness and simplicity of the church as it was left by the 
apostles. Perhaps the best mode of dealing with such persons, is 
to call upon them to exemplify their own general principle, by 
producing specific instances from among the innumerable innova- 
tions that have been introduced into the church in past ages, by 
which they are prepared to maintain that the interests of religion 
have been benefited ; — or, if they decline this, to call upon them 
for a specimen of the innovations, possessed of course of this bene- 
ficial character and tendency, which they themselves have devised 
and would wish to have introduced ; and then to undertake to 
show, what would be no very difficult task, that these innova- 
tions, whether selected or invented, have produced, or would pro- 
duce if tried, effects the very reverse of what they would ascribe 
to them. 

There is a strange fallacy which seems to mislead men in 
forming an estimate of the soundness and importance of this 
principle. Because this principle has been often brought out in 
connection with the discussion of matters which, viewed in them- 
selves, are very unimportant, — such as rites and ceremonies, vest- 
ments and organs, crossings, kneelings, bowings, and other such 
ineptice, — some men seem to think that it partakes of the intrinsic 
littleness of these things, and that the men who defend and try to 
enforce it, find their most congenial occupation in fighting about 
these small matters, and exhibit great bigotry and narrow-minded- 
ness in bringing the authority of God and the testimony of Scrip- 
ture to bear upon such a number of paltry points. Many have 
been led to entertain such views as these of the English Puritans 
and of the Scottish Presbyterians, and very much upon the ground 
of their maintenance of this principle. Now, it should be quite 
sufficient to prevent or neutralize this impression, to show, as we 
think can be done, 1st, That the principle is taught with sufficient 
plainness in Scripture, and that, therefore, it ought to be pro- 
fessed and applied to the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs. 2d, 
That, viewed in itself, it is large, liberal, and comprehensive, such 
as seems in no way unbecoming its divine Author, and in no way 
unsuitable to the dignity of the church as a divine institution, 
giving to God His rightful place of supremacy, and to the church, 



36 LEADEES OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

as the body of Christ, its rightful position of elevated simplicity 
and purity. 3d, That, when contemplated in connection with 
the ends of the church, it is in full accordance with everything 
suggested by an enlightened and searching survey of the tenden- 
cies of human nature, and the testimony of all past experience. 
And with respect to the connection above referred to, on which 
the impression we are combating is chiefly based, it is surely 
plain that, in so far as it exists de facto, this is owing, not to 
anything in the tendencies of the principle itself or of its sup- 
porters, but to the conduct of the men who, in defiance of this 
principle, would obtrude human inventions into the government 
and worship of the church, or who insist upon retaining them 
permanently after they have once got admittance. The principle 
suggests no rites or ceremonies, no schemes or arrangements ; 
it is purely negative and prohibitory. Its supporters never devise 
innovations and press them upon the church. The principle itself 
precludes this. It is the deniers of this principle, and they alone, 
who invent and obtrude innovations ; and they are responsible for 
all the mischiefs that ensue from the discussions and contentions 
to which these things have given rise. 

Men, under the pretence of curing the defects and short- 
comings, the nakedness and bareness, attaching to ecclesiastical 
arrangements as set before us in the New Testament, have been 
constantly proposing innovations and improvements in government 
and worship. The question is, How ought these proposals to have 
been received ? Our answer is, There is a great general scriptural 
principle which shuts them all out. We refuse even to enter into 
the consideration of what is alleged in support of them. It is 
enough for us that they have no positive sanction from Scripture. 
On this ground we refuse to admit them, and, where they have 
crept in, we insist upon their being turned out, although, upon 
this latter point, Calvin, with his usual magnanimity, was always 
willing to have a reasonable regard to times and circumstances, 
and to the weaknesses and infirmities of the parties concerned. 
This is really all that we have to do with the mass of trumpery 
that has been brought under discussion in connection with these 
subjects. We find plainly enough indicated in Scripture a great 
comprehensive principle, suited to the dignity and importance of 
the great subject to which it relates, the right administration of 
the church of Christ, — a principle "majestic in its own simplicity." 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 37 

We apply this principle to the mass of paltry stuff that has been 
devised for the .purpose of improving and adorning the church, 
and thereby we sweep it all away. This is all that we have to 
do with these small matters. We have no desire to know or to 
do anything about them ; and when they are obtruded upon us 
by our opponents, we take our stand upon a higher platform, 
and refuse to look at them. This is plainly the true state of the 
case ; and yet attempts are constantly made, and not wholly 
without success, to represent these small matters, and the discus- 
sions to which they have given rise, as distinctively characteristic 
of English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians ; whereas, in all 
their intrinsic littleness and paltriness, they are really characteristic 
only of those who contend for introducing or retaining them. 

It was a great service, then, that Calvin rendered to the 
church when he brought out and established this principle, in 
correction of the looser views held by the Lutheran and Anglican 
Eeformers. If all the Protestant churches had cordially adopted 
and faithfully followed this simple but comprehensive and com- 
manding principle, this would certainly have prevented a fearful 
amount of mischief, and would, in all probability, have effected a 
vast amount of good. There is good ground to believe, that, in 
that case, the Protestant churches would have been all along far 
more cordially united together, and more active and successful 
in opposing their great common enemies, Popery and Infidelity, 
and in advancing the cause of their common Lord and Master. 

There is another principle that was generally held by the 
Reformers, though not peculiar to them, which is very offensive 
to Dr Tulloch and other latitudinarians, viz. the scriptural autho- 
rity or jus divinum of one particular form of church government. 
This general principle has been held by most men who have felt 
any real honest interest in religious matters, whether they had 
adopted Popish, Prelatic, Presbyterian, or Congregational views of 
what the government of the church should be. The first persons 
who gave prominence to a negation of this principle, were the 
original defenders of the Church of England in Queen Elizabeth's 
reign, Archbishop Whitgift and his associates, who scarcely ven- 
tured to claim a scriptural sanction for the constitution of their 
church. They have not been generally followed in this by the 
more modern defenders of the Church of England, who have 
commonly claimed a divine right for their government, and not a 



38 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

few of whom have gone the length of unchurching Presbyterians 
and Congregationalists. But they have been followed by some 
men in every age who seemed anxious to escape from the con- 
trolling authority of Scripture, that they might be more at liberty 
to gratify their own fancies, or to prosecute their own selfish 
interest. 

From the time of Whitgift and Hooker down to the present 
day, it has been a common misrepresentation of the views of jure 
divino anti-prelatists, to allege, that they claimed a divine right — 
a positive Scripture sanction — for the details of their system of 
government. Dr Tulloch seems to have thought it impossible to 
dispense with this misrepresentation ; and accordingly he tells us 
that Presbyterianism " not merely asserted itself to be wise and 
conformable to Scripture, and therefore divine, but it claimed the 
direct impress of a divine right for all its details and applications." 
This statement is untrue. There may be differences of opinion 
among Presbyterians as to the extent to which a divine right 
should be claimed for the subordinate features of the system, and 
some, no doubt, have gone to an extreme in the extent of their 
claims. But no Presbyterians of eminence have ever claimed 
" the direct impress of a divine right for all the details and appli- 
cations " of their system. They have claimed a divine right, or 
scriptural sanction, only for its fundamental principles, its leading 
features. It is these only which they allege are indicated in 
Scripture in such a way as to be binding upon the church in all 
ages. And it is just the same ground that is taken by all the 
more intelligent and judicious among jure divino Prelatists and 
Congregationalists. 

Dr Tulloch, in the last of the quotations we have given from 
his book, endeavours to prove that no form of church government 
was or could have been laid down in Scripture, so as to be per- 
manently binding upon the church. His leading positions are 
embodied in this statement : — 

" The Christian Scriptures are a revelation of divine truth, and not a reve- 
lation of church polity. They not only do not lay down the outline of such a 
polity, but they do not even give the adequate and conclusive hints of one. 
And for the best of all reasons, that it would have been entirely contrary to 
the spirit of Christianity to have done so ; and because, in point of fact, the 
conditions of human progress do not admit of the imposition of any unvarying 
system of government, ecclesiastical or civil." 



Essay L] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 39 

Dr Tulloch admits that the Scriptures are " a revelation of 
divine truth;" and since the truth revealed in them is not the 
theology of the Reform ation, we hope that some time or other he 
will enlighten the world as to what the " divine truth " is which 
they do reveal. As to the position that " the Scriptures are not a 
revelation of church polity," we venture to think, that it is pos- 
sible that something may be taught in Scripture on the subject 
of church polity for the permanent guidance of the church ; and 
if there be anything of that nature taught there, then it must be 
a portion of the " divine truth " which the Scriptures reveal. 
Whether anything be taught in Scripture on the subject of church 
polity, must be determined, not by such an oracular deliverance as 
Dr Tulloch has given, but by an examination of Scripture itself, 
by an investigation into the validity of the scriptural grounds 
which have been brought forward in support of the different theo- 
ries of church government. Dr Tulloch will scarcely allege, that 
there is nothing whatever taught in Scripture as to what should 
be the polity of the church ; and if there be anything taught there 
upon the subject, it must be received as a portion of divine truth. 
He is quite sure, however, that the sacred Scriptures " not only do 
not lay down the outline of such a polity, but they do not even 
give the adequate and conclusive hints of one." Here we are 
directly at issue with him. We contend that not merely " hints," 
but what may be fairly called an " outline " of a particular church 
polity, are set forth in Scripture in such a way as to be binding 
upon the church in all ages. 

We admit, indeed, that when this position is discussed in the 
abstract as a general thesis, a good deal of the argument often 
adduced in support of it is unsatisfactory and insufficient, as 
well as what is adduced against it. When the position we main- 
tain is put in the shape of an abstract proposition, in which the 
advocates of all the different forms of church government — 
Papists, Prelatists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists — may 
concur ; in other words, when the general position is laid down, 
that a particular form of church government, without specify- 
ing wJiat, is sanctioned by Scripture, we admit that the mate- 
rials which may be brought to bear in support of this position 
are somewhat vague and indefinite, and do not tell very directly 
and conclusively upon the point to be proved. The strength 
of the case is brought fully out only when it is alleged that 



40 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay T. 

some one particular form of church government specified, as 
Prelacy or Presbyterianism, is sanctioned and imposed by Scrip- 
ture. The best and most satisfactory way of establishing the 
general position, that the Scripture sanctions and imposes a par- 
ticular form of church government, is to bring out the particular 
principles, rules, and arrangements in regard to the govern- 
ment of the church which are sanctioned by Scripture, and to 
show that these, when taken together, or viewed in combination, 
constitute what may be fairly and reasonably called a form of 
church government. By this process not only is the general pro- 
position most clearly and directly established, but, what is of much 
more importance, the particular form of church government which 
Scripture sanctions, and which, therefore, the church is under a 
permanent obligation to have, is brought out and demonstrated. 

Attempts, indeed, have been made to prove and to disprove 
the general thesis in the abstract by a priori reasonings, but most 
of these reasonings appear to us to possess but little force or rele- 
vancy. It is contended on a priori grounds, on the one hand, that 
there must have been a particular form of church government laid 
down in Scripture ; and it is contended on similar grounds, on the 
other hand, that this could not be done, or that it was impossible 
consistently with the general nature of the Christian church, and 
the circumstances in which it was, and was to be, placed. But 
the truth is, that nothing which can be fairly regarded as very- 
clear or cogent can be adduced in support of either of these abstract 
positions, unless the idea of a form of church government be taken, 
in the first of them, in a very wide and lax, and in the second, in 
a very minute and restricted sense. On the one hand, while 
there is a large measure of a priori probability, that Christ, intend- 
ing to found a church as an organized, visible, permanent society, 
very different in character from the previously subsisting church 
of God, especially in regard to all matters of external organization 
and arrangement, should give some general directions or indica- 
tions of His mind and will as to its constitution and government, 
we have no certain materials for making any assertion as to the 
extent to which He was called upon to carry the rules He might 
prescribe as of permanent obligation, or for holding that He might 
be confidently expected to give rules so complete and minute as to 
constitute what might with any propriety be called a form of 
church government. And, on the other hand, while it is evident that 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 41 

the Christian church was intended to be wholly different in external / 

organization from the Jewish one, and to have no such minute 
and detailed system of regulations, as being intended for all ages 
and countries; and while on these grounds, but little, as compared 
with the Jewish system, was to be subjected to precise and detailed 
regulations, and something might thus be left to the church to be 
determined by the light of nature and providential circumstances, 
— there is no antecedent improbability whatever, arising from any 
source or any consideration, in the idea that Christ might give 
such general directions on this subject as, when combined together, 
might justly have the designation of a form of church govern- 
ment applied to them. On these grounds we do not attach much 
weight to those general a priori considerations, by which many 
have undertaken to prove, on the one hand, that Christ must have 
established a particular form of government for His church, or, on 
the other hand, that He could not have done so; and we regard the 
case upon this whole subject as left in a very defective and imper- 
fect state, until the advocates of the principle of a scripturally 
sanctioned or jure clivino form of church government, have shown 
what the particular form of church government is which the 
Scripture sanctions, and have produced the evidence that Scrip- 
ture does sanction that form, and, of course, a form — which will 
be a sufficient answer to the allegation that He could not have 
done so. 

We think we can prove from Scripture statement and apos- 
tolic practice, the binding obligation of certain laws or rules, and 
arrangements, which furnish not only " hints," but even an " out- 
line of church polity," and which, when combined together, may 
be fairly said to constitute a form of church government. In this 
way, we think we can show that there is a particular form of 
church government which, in its fundamental principles and 
leading features, is sanctioned and imposed by Scripture, viz., 
the Presbyterian one. 

If the general a priori considerations which have been fre- 
quently brought into the discussion of this subject are insufficient 
to establish the true position, that Scripture does sanction one 
particular form of church government, much less are they ade- 
quate to establish the false position that it does not. Dr Tulloch, 
as we have seen, asserts that we have "the best of all reasons" to 
show that the Scriptures do not lay down even an "outline" of a 



42 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

church polity. But his " best of all reasons " are not likely to 
satisfy any but those who are determined beforehand to be con- 
vinced. His reasons are two : — 1st, " It would have been entirely 
contrary to the spirit of Christianity to have done so;" 2d, "The 
conditions of human progress do not admit of the imposition of 
any unvarying system of government, ecclesiastical or civil." This 
is the whole proof which he adduces ; and these he calls " the best 
of all reasons." This, forsooth, is to prove that it is impossible 
that even the " outline" of a church polity could have been set 
forth in Scripture as permanently binding. Even Divine Wisdom, 
it would seem, could not have devised an outline of a church 
polity which would have been accordant with " the spirit of 
Christianity and the conditions of human progress." Our readers, 
we presume, will not expect us to say anything more for the pur- 
pose of refuting and exposing this. " The spirit of Christianity 
and the conditions of human progress" might have had some bear- 
ing upon the question in hand, if there had been on the other 
side the maintenance of the position, that the Scriptures imposed 
upon the church a full system of minute and detailed prescription 
of external arrangements, similar in character and general features 
to the Jewish economy. But when it is considered how entirely 
different from everything of this sort is all that is contended for 
by intelligent defenders of the divine right of a particular form 
of church government, most men, we think, will see that Dr 
Tulloch's appeal, for conclusive evidence against its possibility, 
to the spirit of Christianity and the conditions of human pro- 
gress, is truly ridiculous. 

The disproof of the position, which has been received so gene- 
rally among professing Christians, that Scripture does sanction 
and prescribe the outline of a church polity, cannot be effected by 
means of vague and ambiguous generalities, or by high-sounding 
declamation. It can be effected, if at all, only by the method of 
exhaustion ; that is, by the detailed refutation of all the different 
attempts which have been made to establish from Scripture the 
divine right of a particular form of church government. And 
this species of work is much more difficult, requires much more 
talent and learning, than declaiming about " the spirit of Chris- 
tianity and the conditions of human progress." 

At the same time, we must admit that it has become somewhat 
common and popular in modern times, to scout and ridicule the 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 43 

advancing of a claim to a divine right on behalf of any particular 
form of church government. This has arisen partly, no doubt, 
from the ignorant and injudicious zeal with which the claim has 
been sometimes advocated, even by those whose views upon the 
subject of church government were, in the main, sound and scrip- 
tural ; but principally, we are persuaded, from certain erroneous 
notions of the practical consequences that are supposed to follow 
necessarily from the establishment of this claim. 

All Papists and many Prelatists, in putting forth a claim to a 
divine right on behalf of their respective systems of church govern- 
ment, have openly, and without hesitation, deduced from their 
fancied success in establishing this claim, the conclusion that 
professedly Christian societies which had not their form of 
government were, for this reason, to be refused the designation 
and the ordinary rights of Christian churches, or even to be 
placed beyond the pale within which salvation is ordinarily pos- 
sible. This mode of procedure, in applying the claim to a divine 
right, universal among Papists, and by no means uncommon 
among a certain class of Prelatists, must appear to men who 
know anything of the general genius and spirit of the Christian 
system, and who are possessed of any measure of common sense 
and Christian charity, to be absurd and monstrous ; and by many 
the disgust which has been reasonably excited by this conduct, 
has been transferred to the general principle of claiming a jus 
divinum on behalf of a particular form of church government, 
from which it was supposed necessarily to flow. All this, how- 
ever, is unwarranted and erroneous. Presbyterians and Congre- 
gationalists have as generally set up a claim to a divine right on 
behalf of their systems of church government as Papists and 
Prelatists have done; but we do not remember that there has 
ever been a Presbyterian or a Congregation alist of any note who 
unchurched all other denominations except his own, or who refused 
to regard and treat them as Christian churches merely on the 
ground that they had adopted a form of government different 
from that which he believed to have, exclusively, the sanction of 
the word of God. 

But many seem to suppose that Presbyterians and Congrega- 
tionalists, in not unchurching other denominations on the ground 
of rejecting what they believe respectively to be the only scrip- 
turally sanctioned form of church government, are guilty of an 



44 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

amiable weakness, and fall into inconsistency, by declining to fol- 
low out their assertion of a jus divinum in judging of others, to its 
natural and legitimate consequences. This notion is erroneous 
and unjust, as will appear by attending to the true state of the 
case. All that is implied in claiming a divine right for Presby- 
terianism, for instance, is that the person who does so believes, 
and thinks he can prove, that Christ has plainly enough indicated 
in His word His mind and will, that the fundamental principles 
of Presbyterianism should always and everywhere regulate the 
government of His church. Prelatists and Congregationalists, 
professing equally to follow the guidance of the sacred Scrip- 
tures and to submit to the authority of Christ, have formed a 
different and opposite judgment as to the true bearing and im- 
port of the materials which Scripture furnishes upon this subject, 
and have in consequence set up a different form of government 
in their churches. This being the true state of the case, the sum 
and substance of what any candid and intelligent Presbyterian, 
even though holding the jus divinum of presbytery, has to charge 
against them is just this, — that they have mistaken the mind and 
will of Christ upon this point, that they have formed an erroneous 
judgment about the import of the indications He has given in 
His word, as to how He would have the government of His church 
to be regulated. And this, which is really the whole charge, does 
not, upon principles generally acknowledged, afford of itself any 
sufficient ground for unchurching them, or for refusing to recog- 
nise and treat them as Christian churches. It is a serious matter 
to adopt and to act upon erroneous views in regard to any portion 
of divine truth, anything which God has made known to us in His 
word, and we have no wish to palliate this in any instance. But 
let the case be fairly stated, and let the principles ordinarily and 
justly applied to other errors be applied to this one. There can 
be no possible ground for holding, that the adoption and mainten- 
ance of an error on the subject of the government of the church, 
by words or deeds, involves more guilt, or should be more severely 
condemned, than the adoption and maintenance of an error upon 
a matter of doctrine in the more limited sense of that word ; and 
on the contrary, there is a great deal in the nature of the subject, 
viewed in connection with the general character, spirit, tendency, 
and objects of the Christian economy, and in the kind and amount 
of the materials of evidence which Scripture affords us for forming 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 45 

a judgment upon such questions, which indicates that errors in 
regard to government should be treated with less severity of con- 
demnation, and should less materially affect the intercourse of 
churches with each other, than errors (within certain limits) with 
regard to doctrine, which are not usually considered to warrant 
the unchurching of other denominations, or to form an insuperable 
obstacle to the maintenance of friendly relations with them. 

These grounds, on which we establish the unwarrantableness 
and unfairness of the common allegation, that claiming a divine 
right for one particular form of church government, implies the 
unchurching of other denominations who may have come to a 
different conclusion as to the bearing of the Scripture testimony 
upon this subject, apply equally to the wider and more compre- 
hensive principle, formerly explained, of the unlawfulness of in- 
troducing anything into the government and worship of the church 
which is not positively sanctioned by Scripture. Lutherans and 
Anglicans generally contend that this principle is not taught in 
Scripture, and, on this ground, refuse to be so strictly tied up in 
regard to the introduction of ceremonies and regulations. We 
believe that, in denying this principle, they have fallen into an 
error in the interpretation and application of Scripture, and that 
the ceremonies and regulations which, in opposition to it, they may 
have introduced, are unlawful, and ought to be removed. But we 
never imagined, that because of this error in opinion, followed to 
some extent by error in practice, these denominations were to be 
unchurched, or to be shut out from friendly intercourse, especially 
as the scriptural evidence in favour of the principle, though quite 
sufficient and satisfactory to our minds, is of a somewhat construc- 
tive and inferential description, and as differences sometimes arise 
among those who concur in holding it about some of the details of 
its application. 

If these views, which are in manifest accordance with the 
dictates of common sense, and w 7 ith principles generally recognised 
in other departments of theological discussion, were admitted, 
there would be much less disinclination to yield to the force of 
the Scripture evidence in support of the two principles which we 
have explained, and which form, we are persuaded, the only 
effectual security for the purity of church administration, and the 
authority of church arrangements. 

But there are, in every age, some men who seem anxious to 



46 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

have the reputation of being in advance of air around them in the 
enlightened knowledge of theological subjects, and who, with this 
view, are very desirous to escape from the trammels of implicit 
deference to the authority of Scripture. The great source of 
error in religious matters is, that men do not fully and honestly 
take the w T ord of God as their rule and standard. They may 
profess to do so, and they may do so to some extent ; but there 
have been many contrivances, by which men have laboured to 
undermine the authority of Scripture as a rule of faith and 
practice, while professing to respect it, and have virtually set up 
themselves or their fellow-men as the ultimate standard of truth. 
Papists and Quakers, Rationalists and Traditionalists, Fanatics 
and Mystics, all undermine the supreme authority of Scripture, 
and substitute something else in its room ; and the elements of the 
leading notions of these various parties, singly or in combination, 
are now in extensive operation amongst us. Indeed, one of the 
most remarkable features of the present age, is the extent to which 
these different, and apparently opposite, elements are combined 
even in the same persons, and co-operate in producing the same 
result. There are persons of some influence in the religious world, 
in the present day, in regard to whom it would not be easy to 
determine under which of the heads above mentioned they might 
most fairly be ranked — men who seem to be at once traditionalists, 
rationalists, and mystics, and who, under the influence of a com- 
bination of the elements of these different systems, set aside, to a 
considerable extent, the authority of Scripture, and pervert the 
meaning of its statements, or, at least, come far short in turning 
the Scriptures to good account, or in deriving from them the 
amount of clear and definite knowledge of divine things which 
they are fitted and intended to convey. 

It might be a useful and interesting subject of investiga- 
tion, to bring out a view of the way in which these different and 
opposite tendencies are, in the present day, combined in producing 
error and unsoundness, and especially indefiniteness and obscurity, 
on religious subjects. The great bugbear, indeed, now-a-days, is 
the inculcation of clear and definite doctrines upon theological 
topics. Men seem now quite willing to employ any pretence, 
derived from any quarter, for discountenancing definite and sys- 
tematic views of Christian truth, and for bringing back again over 
the church all the confusion and obscurity of the dark ages. The 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 47 

men of progress in the present day seem to have resolved to gain 
distinction by extinguishing light, and plunging back into dark- 
ness ; and they evidently hope that in this way they will acquire 
the reputation of being very advanced and very profound. 

In every age since the revival of letters, there has been a class 
of men who were anxious to distinguish themselves from those 
around them by going ahead, by turning aside from the path 
which most of their friends and associates were pursuing, and 
by taking what they reckon a more advanced and elevated 
position. What they may happen to regard as constituting the 
advancement and elevation which minister to their self-com- 
placency, may depend upon a great variety of causes and influ- 
ences. But it has not usually been found very difficult to 
discover something or other which might be made to appear 
advanced and elevated, although it really was not so when tried 
by any standard reasonably and legitimately applicable. In this 
way, men of a certain stamp have usually found it easy enough 
to get up some plausible grounds for regarding and representing 
themselves as liberal and enlightened, and the generality of those 
around them as narrow-minded and bigoted ; and at present, the 
greatest credit in theological matters is to be gained, it seems, by 
taking as little as possible from Scripture, by repudiating all clear 
and definite views upon doctrinal subjects, and by displaying a 
"voluntary humility" in striving to get back to the primeval con- 
dition of ignorance and obscurity. This condition of comparative 
ignorance and obscurity might be harmless and innocent before 
errors were broached and controversies were waged, but it has 
now become for ever unattainable on the part of intelligent and 
educated men, and if it were attainable, could be realized only 
through a sinful refusal to improve the opportunities which God 
has given us of acquiring an accurate knowledge of His revealed 
will. There is, indeed, a bigotry which is despicable and inju- 
rious, the bigotry of those who refuse to practise any independent 
thinking, who slavishly submit to mere human authority, who 
never venture to entertain the idea of deviating in any point from 
the beaten track, and denounce as a matter of course all who do 
so, who can see only one side of a subject, or perhaps only one 
corner of one side of it, who are incapable of forming a reason- 
able estimate of the comparative importance of different truths 
and different errors, who contend for all truths and denounce all 



48 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

errors with equal vehemence, who never modify or retract their 
opinions, who have no difficulties themselves and no sympathy 
with the difficulties of others. We meet occasionally with bigots 
of this sort, and they are very despicable and very mischievous. 
There is also a species of progress, which is creditable and praise- 
worthy, exhibited by men who are thoroughly conversant with, 
and reasonably deferential to, the attainments of the churches and 
the achievements of the great theologians of former times, who 
can comprehensively survey and judiciously estimate the past, 
who can read the lessons " of doctrine, reproof, and correction" 
which it is fitted to suggest, who are thus by the study of the past 
qualified in some measure to anticipate and to guide the course of 
discussion in the future, and who, while, it may be, only confirmed 
by their researches and meditations in the soundness of their own 
leading convictions, have learned, at the same time and by the 
same process, a larger measure of friendly forbearance for those 
who differ from them. This is a kind of progress which should 
ever be regarded with approbation and respect, and in which all 
of us, according to our capacities and opportunities, should be 
seeking to advance. But this is a very different kind of thing 
from the latitudinarianism which finds its representatives in every 
age, and which at bottom is little better than a desire of noto- 
riety, and an affectation of superior wisdom where no superior 
wisdom exists. We believe that the general run of latitudinarians, 
or men of progress, to be found in every generation of theologians 
from the Reformation to the present day, have upon the whole 
been as ignorant, as narrow-minded, and as self-conceited, as the 
bigots. We have no respect for any of the "men of latitude" 
and progress in the present day regarded as theologians ; we have 
a very decided conviction, that the leading views in which the 
generality of the Reformers concurred, both with respect to the 
substance of Christian theology and the organization of the Chris- 
tian church, can be fully established from Scripture ; and we cer- 
tainly never shall be shaken in this conviction by vague generali- 
ties, high-sounding pretensions, or supercilious declamation. But 
we have no wish to remain in darkness wdiile the light is shining 
all around us. And we promise that, if Mr Isaac Taylor or 
Dr Tulloch will abandon the vague and equivocal declamation 
which they have put forth on this subject, if they will plainly and 
explicitly declare what are the Reformation doctrines on theologi- 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 49 

cal and ecclesiastical subjects which must now be dismissed as 
untenable, producing at the same time the detailed proof that 
these doctrines are not sanctioned by Scripture rightly interpreted 
and applied, we shall give them a careful and deliberate hearing ; 
and we shall examine their statements with the more earnestness 
and respect, if they not only refute the theology of the Reforma- 
tion, but at the same time expound and establish a different theo- 
logy that may be entitled to take its place. 

The really vital questions which all men are called upon to 
solve as well as they can, are these : — What ought we to believe 
concerning God and ourselves, concerning Christ and the way of 
salvation, concerning the church and the sacraments ? We have 
long held, that men who made a thorough and adequate, an accu- 
rate and comprehensive, use of the materials furnished by Scrip- 
ture, would be constrained to admit, that the true answer to all 
these questions is, in substance, what is set forth in the confes- 
sions of the Reformed churches, the most important body of un- 
inspired documents in existence. But the subject is too vitally 
important to be set aside as altogether beyond the pale of further 
investigation, and we would not refuse to attend to any feasible 
attempt to show that these questions ought to be answered in a 
different way. 

Dr Tulloch rejects the views which the Reformers derived 
from Scripture upon these points. But he has not told us what 
other views Scripture requires us to adopt, and he has given us 
nothing but some dark, mysterious hints, as to the nature of the 
process by which it may be shown that the theology of the Re- 
formation will not do for the nineteenth century. We know 
something of the process by which Arminians and Socinians, 
rationalists and latitudinarians, have laboured to show that the theo- 
logy of the Reformation is not taught in Scripture. We are well 
satisfied that nothing more formidable can be adduced against it 
than has been brought forward, consistently with an honest ad- 
mission in any sense of the divine authority of Scripture ; and we 
are confirmed in this conviction by the fact, that some of the most 
learned modern German critics have admitted that the apostles 
believed and taught the leading doctrines of the Reformers, while 
they of course refuse to believe anything so irrational upon the 
authority of apostles. Surely it is high time that Mr Isaac Taylor 
should develop his new " exegetical method" which is to revolu- 

VOL. I. 4 



50 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

tionize theology, and that Dr Tulloch should unfold his " spirit of 
interpreting Scripture/' which could have " hardly been intelli- 
gible to Calvin/' but which, it seems, is quite adequate to de- 
molish Calvinism. Whatever this mysterious method or spirit 
may be, we are not afraid of it. Let it be brought freely out 
to the open field of conflict, and let it do its best to overturn 
the theology of the Reformation. We have no anxiety about the 
result. 

One of the worst passages in Dr Tulloch's book is the conclu- 
sion of his sketch of Luther. It is so bad that we must quote it 
at length : — 

" They were consistent in displacing the Church of Rome from its position 
of assumed authority over the conscience, but they were equally consistent, 
all of them, in raising a dogmatic authority in its stead. In favour of their 
own views, they asserted the right of the private judgment to interpret and 
decide the meaning of Scripture, but they had nevertheless no idea of a really 
free interpretation of Scripture. Their orthodoxy everywhere appealed to 
Scripture, but it rested in reality upon an Augustinian commentary of Scrip- 
ture. • They displaced the mediaeval schoolmen, but only to elevate Augustine. 
And having done this, they had no conception of any limits. attaching to this 
new tribunal of heresy. Freedom of opinion, in the modern sense, was 
utterly unknown to them. There was not merely an absolute truth in Scrip- 
ture, but they had settled, by the help of Augustine, what this truth was ; 
and any variations from this standard were not to be tolerated. The idea of 
a free faith holding to very different dogmatic views, and yet equally Chris- 
tian, — the idea of spiritual life and goodness apart from theoretical orthodoxy, — 
had not dawned on the sixteenth century, nor long afterwards. Heresy was 
not a mere divergence of intellectual apprehension, but a moral obliquity — a 
statutory offence — to be punished by the magistrate, to be expiated by death. 
It is the strangest and most saddening of all spectacles to contemplate the slow 
and painful process by which the human mind has emancipated itself from the 
dark delusion, that intellectual error is a subject of moral offence and punish- 
ment, as if even the highest expressions of the most enlightened dogmatism 
were or could be anything more than the mere gropings after God's immea- 
surable truth — the mere pebbles by the shore of the unnavigable sea — the mere 
star-dust in the boundless heaven, pointing to a ' light inaccessible and full of 
glory, which no man hath seen, neither indeed can see.' It required the lapse 
of many years to make men begin to feel — and it may still require the lapse 
of many more to make them fully feel — that they cannot absolutely fix in 
their feeble symbols the truth of God ; that it is ever bursting with its own 
free might the old bottles in which they would contain it ; and that con- 
sequently, according to that very law of progress by which all things live, it 
is impossible to bind the conscience by any bonds but those of God's own wis- 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 51 

dom (word) in Scripture — a spiritual authority addressing a spiritual subject 
— a teacher, not of ' the letter which killeth, but of the Spirit which giveth 
life.'"* 

We have not now space for exposing, as it deserves, this 
remarkable and significant passage. We can only suggest a few 
hints as to its import and bearing. 

1. Dr Tulloch makes the statement absolutely and without 
qualification, that heresy is not a " moral obliquity," — that it is " a 
dark delusion that intellectual error is a subject of moral offence 
and punishment." Is this anything different from what Warbur- 
ton, a century ago, denounced as " the master sophism of this 
infidel age, the innocence of error" ? 

2. When Dr Tulloch intimates his approbation of " the idea 
of a free faith, holding to very different dogmatic views, and yet 
equally Christian," we presume he just means, in plain English, 
to tell us, that Calvinism, Arminianism, and Socinianism, are all 
equally Christian. 

3. In this passage he seems to confound or mix up together 
all interference with heresy or " intellectual error" in religious 
matters, whether by the civil or the ecclesiastical authorities, as if 
all exercise of ecclesiastical discipline on such grounds, were just 
as unwarrantable and offensive as persecution, in the shape of the 
infliction of civil pains and penalties on the ground of error in 
religion. This confounding of things that differ, was one of the 
leading artifices of the infidels and semi-infidels, who discussed 
these subjects in the early part of last century, the Tindals and 
Collinses, the Hoadlej^s and Sykeses. 

4. Dr Tulloch seems here to employ another sophism derived 
from the same not very respectable source, when, upon the grounds 
that creeds and confessions are human productions, and of course 
exhibit indications of human imperfections, and that they are not 
fitted to serve all the purposes to which they have been sometimes 
applied, he would intimate that they are of no worth or value 
whatever, and are not fitted to serve any good or useful purpose. 
His views upon this point are certainly not brought out clearly 
and explicitly, but what has now been stated, seems, so far as we 
can judge, to be the substance of what he intended to indicate, 
especially in the last sentence of the quotation. There is a 



'* Pp. 87-8. 



52 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. 

notion which seems to be pretty prevalent in the present day, 
though as yet in a somewhat latent and undeveloped form, 
and which produces some sympathy in the minds of many with 
what is said in disparagement of creeds and confessions. It is a 
doubt, at least, whether creeds and confessions, which are to be 
made terms of ministerial communion, and, of course, grounds 
of division among churches, should be so long and so minute as 
some of them are. We have noticed of late some indications of 
this feeling in men who are far superior to the vulgar aversion 
to creeds, and whom there is no reason to suspect of unfaith- 
fulness to their own confession. We admit that this is a fair 
and reasonable topic for discussion, and we are not aware that, 
as distinguished from some of the other branches of the contro- 
versy about confessions, it has ever yet been subjected to so 
throrough, deliberate, and comprehensive an investigation as its 
importance deserves. We have no wish to encourage the raising 
of a discussion upon this subject. But we see symptoms which 
seem to indicate, that it is likely to be pressed upon the attention 
of the churches, and it may be well that men should be turning 
their thoughts to it. 

5. Men who are familiar with the common cant of latitudina- 
rians, will easily see that some of the statements contained in this 
passage, especially those which speak of the influence of Augus- 
tine, and of an " Augustinian commentary of Scripture," are 
intended to convey such notions as these, — that the Reformers 
derived their leading theological views, not from the word of God, 
but from the writings of Augustine ; that they adopted Augus- 
tine's views, not because they had satisfied themselves of their , 
accordance with Scripture, but from deference to his authority, or 
from some other adventitious, or accidental, or, it may be, un- | 
worthy, cause ; that having adopted Augustinian views for some 
other reason than their accordance with Scripture, they then did 
what they could to bend and twist Scripture to the support of 
Augustinianism, and that in this way they brought out of Scrip- 
ture what is not to be found there, what it does not sanction. 
All this Dr Tulloch's statements seem to us to imply. It would 
have been more creditable to him to have openly and explicitly 
asserted it. But as he has produced no evidence in support of 
these notions, we could only meet even an assertion of them by 
a denial of their truth. We assert, that the notions which Dr 



Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 53 

Tulloch here indicates with regard to the theological views of the 
Reformers are not true ; and in flat contradiction to them we 
assert, that the Reformers adopted Augustine's views because 
satisfied, as the result of careful and deliberate investigation, that 
they were in accordance with the teaching of Scripture; that they 
were right in entertaining this conviction ; that they brought 
out the evidence of the scriptural authority of the doctrines of 
Augustine much more fully and satisfactorily than he himself had 
done ; in short, that they proved conclusively and unanswerably, 
that Augustinianism or Calvinism is revealed to us by God in 
His word. 

The substance of what he seems to allege here against the 
Reformers, we have no doubt he would direct equally against 
those benighted men who in this nineteenth century are willing 
to acknowledge themselves Calvinists. He perhaps thinks that 
we too have been led to profess Augustinian or Oalvinistic doc- 
trines, not from an intelligent and honest study of the sacred 
Scriptures, but from some adventitious, irrelevant, inadequate, 
perhaps unworthy, motive or influence, and that we are pervert- 
ing, or in some way or other misapplying, the materials furnished 
by Scripture, in order to procure support to our opinions. Dr 
Tulloch has no right to expect that any mere assertion of his on 
such a subject will carry much weight or excite much feeling. 
Bat since he has not hesitated to set aside the theology of the 
Reformation, the theology which has generally been professed in 
Scotland from the Reformation to the present day, and to do this 
in circumstances which did not admit of theological discussion, we 
think it probable that he is willing and ready to bring forward 
the grounds on which his views upon this subject are based. We 
must presume, after what he has said, that he is prepared to give 
to the world a detailed exposure of the theology of the Reforma- 
tion, a new " Refutation of Calvinism." He can scarcely avoid 
attempting something of this sort, and we venture to assure him 
beforehand that he will not succeed. 



LUTHER.* 



It is admitted by all Christians that the church is, in some sense, 
the organ and the representative of Christ upon earth. This 
principle, true in itself, is very liable to be abused and perverted. 
It is perverted grossly in the hands of Romanists, when it is 
represented as implying that the church, as a visible society, has 
virtually the same power and authority, the same rights and pre- 
rogatives, as its Master in heaven. The general principle about 
the church, understood in this sense, and combined with the 
assumption that the church of Christ upon earth is the church 
which acknowledges the authority of the Bishop of Rome as 
Christ's vicar, is the foundation of the papal claims to supremacy 
and infallibility. The same principle is also employed largely 
to defend or palliate some of the more offensive consequences of 
these claims, and some of the more offensive modes of enforcing 
them. On the ground of this identification of Christ and the 
church, the opponents of the church come to be regarded as the 
enemies of Christ, and His vicar is held to be entitled to deal with 
them, so far as he can, just as Christ may deal with those who 
continue finally obstinate and impenitent enemies to His cause. 
In this way Papists come to subordinate everything, in the mode 
in which they regard and deal with their fellow-men, to the fancied 
honour and interests of the church, and to look upon the oppo- 
nents of the church not as their fellow-men, whom they are bound 
to love, but simply as the enemies of Christ, whom they are entitled 
to injure. It is deeply engrained on the minds of Romanists, that 
those who are beyond the pale of the true church forfeit the 



* British and Foreign Evangelical 
Review, April 1856. 

1. Vindication of Luther against bis 
recent English Assailants, by Julius 
Charles Hare. 1855. 



2. Discussions on Philosophy and 
Literature, Education and University 
Reform, chiefly from the Edinburgh 
Review, by Sir William Hamilton, 
Bart. 1853. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 55 

ordinary rights of men and members of society; and that, espe- 
cially when they take an active and prominent part in opposing 
and injuring the church, they ought to be treated as outlaws or 
as wild beasts. 

It is this identification of the church and its visible head, the 
Pope, with Christ himself, that produces and accounts for that 
extraordinary subordination of everything to the interests of the 
church which is so remarkable a feature of Popery; and that 
explains the persecutions which Romanists have at all times been 
quite willing to perpetrate. All this may be regarded as exhibit- 
ing the natural and appropriate result of Popish principles, and 
as, in some sense, rather helping, when viewed in connection with 
certain tendencies of human nature, to palliate the cruelties which 
have disgraced the history of the Church of Rome. But there 
is an abuse of the principle which has been often acted upon by 
Papists, though not often openly avowed, and which is altogether 
destitute of any appearance, of excuse ; it is that of acting as if 
it were held that men who oppose and resist the Church of Rome 
not only forfeit thereby the ordinary rights and privileges of men, 
of neighbours, and of relatives, but lose all right even to claim 
that the ordinary rules of integrity and veracity should be observed 
in regard to them. It has been no uncommon thing for Papists 
to act as if not only the social and domestic affections, and 
the duties connected with them, but even the laws of immutable 
morality, were to be subordinated to the interests of. the church. 
This is the principle involved in the decision of the Council of 
Constance, and often acted upon in the Church of Rome, about 
keeping faith with heretics. That decision was intended to sanc- 
tion the doctrine that heretics,, the open enemies of the church, 
have no right to demand the fulfilment of engagements and 
promises, and that no pledges given to such persons should ever 
be allowed to stand in the way of any scheme for promoting 
the church's objects. These notions exert a constant and abiding 
influence upon the minds of most Romanists, even of many who 
would shrink from embodying them in formal propositions. The 
consummation of what is most discreditable in this matter is to be 
found in the fact, that some Jesuit writers have openly proclaimed 
the lawfulness of putting forth deliberate and intentional slanders 
for the purpose of injuring their enemies, — a fact established by 
Pascal in the fifteenth of his " Provincial Letters," and one that 



56 LUTHEE. [Essay II. 

ought to be remembered and applied in judging of the reliance 
to be placed upon the statements of Romish controversialists. 

With such views and impressions prevailing among Romanists, 
it was not to be expected that the Reformers, who did so much 
damage to the Church of Rome, would be treated with justice or 
decency. Accordingly, we find that a most extraordinary series 
of slanders against the character of the leading Reformers, utterly 
unsupported by evidence, and wholly destitute of truth and plausi- 
bility, were invented and propagated by Romish writers. Luther 
and the other Reformers were charged, in Popish publications, 
with heinous crimes, of which no evidence was or could be pro- 
duced ; and these accusations, though their falsehood was often 
exposed, continued long to be repeated in most Popish books. 
With respect to the more offensive accusations that used to be 
adduced against the Reformers, a considerable check was given 
to the general circulation of them, by the thorough exposures of 
their unquestionable falsehood which were put forth by Bayle in 
his Dictionary, a work which was extensively read in the literary 
world. Papists became ashamed to advance, in works intended 
for general circulation, allegations which Bayle's Dictionary had 
prepared the reading public to regard, without hesitation, as de- 
liberate falsehoods, though they continued to repeat them in works 
intended for circulation among their own people. Scarcely any 
Romish writers who pretended to anything like respectability, 
have, for a century and a half, ventured to commit themselves 
to an explicit assertion of the grosser calumnies which used to be 
adduced against the Reformers. Some of them, however, have 
shown a considerable unwillingness to abandon these charges 
entirely, and like still to mention them as accusations which were 
at one time adduced, and which men may still believe if they 
choose. 

But while Romanists have now ceased wholly or in a great 
measure to urge the grosser charges which they used to bring 
against the Reformers, their general principles and spirit continue 
unchanged; the outward improvement in their conduct being 
owing solely to fear or policy, and not to any real advancement 
in integrity and candour. ' It is emphatically true of almost all 
the defenders and champions of Popery, that they fear nothing 
but a witness and a judge, and do not scruple to misrepresent and 
slander their enemies, so far as they think they can do this with 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 57 

impunity to themselves and benefit to their cause. They confine 
themselves now, in a great measure, to charges of a less heinous 
nature than those which before Bayle's time they were in the 
habit of adducing, and to charges which have some appearance 
at least of evidence to rest upon. But these lighter and more 
plausible accusations are in general almost as unfounded as the 
others. Protestants, of course, do not regard the Reformers as 
either infallible or impeccable. They believe that most of them 
held views, upon some points, more or less erroneous, and that all 
of them gave abundant evidence that they were stained with the 
common infirmities of humanity. But they regard them as men 
who were specially qualified and raised up by God for the ad- 
vancement of His own cause, for bringing out the buried truth 
and reforming the corrupted church, who were guided by God's* 
word and Spirit to views, in the main accurate, of the leading 
principles of Christian doctrine, and who, in the habitual tenor of 
their lives, furnished satisfactory evidence of acting under the 
influence of real religion and genuine piety. Believing this con- 
cerning the Reformers, Protestants feel it to be both their duty 
and their privilege to defend them from the assaults of adversaries, 
and especially to refute anything that may seem to militate against 
the truth of the statement now given, of what they believe as to 
the general character and position of these illustrious men. 

The great general position which Romanists are anxious to 
establish by all they can collect against the Reformers, from their 
writings or their lives, from their sayings or their doings, is this, 
that it is very unlikely that God would employ such men in the 
accomplishment of any special work for the advancement of His 
gracious purposes. In dealing with this favourite allegation of 
Romanists, Protestants assert and undertake to prove the follow- 
ing positions : — 1st, That the allegation is irrelevant to the real 
merits of the controversy between us and the Church of Rome, 
which can be determined only by the standard of the written 
w T ord; 2d, that the allegation is untrue, — in other words, that 
there is nothing about the character of the Reformers as a whole 
which renders it in the least unlikely that God employed them in 
His own special gracious work ; and M, that the general prin- 
ciple on which the allegation is based can be applied in the way 
of retort, with far greater effect, to the Church of Rome. Protes- 
tants, by establishing these three positions, effectually dispose of 



58 LUTHER. [Essay IT. 

the Romish allegation. It is with the second of them only that 
we have at present to do, and even on it we do not mean to 
enlarge. 

Romanists have taken great pains to collect every expression 
from the writings of the Reformers, and to bring forward every 
incident in their lives, that may be fitted — especially when they 
are all presented nakedly and in combination — to produce an 
unfavourable impression as to their motives and actions. In the 
prosecution of this work, they are usually quite unscrupulous 
about the completeness of their quotations and the accuracy of 
their facts, and in this way they sometimes manage to make out, 
upon some particular points, what may appear to ignorant or pre- 
judiced readers to be a good case. In dealing with the materials 
which Papists have collected for depreciating the character of the 
Reformers, and thus establishing the improbability of God having 
employed them as His instruments in restoring divine truth, and 
in reforming the church, there are three steps in the process that 
ought to be attended to and discriminated, in order to our arriving 
at a just and fair conclusion : — 

1st, We must carefully ascertain the true facts of the case as 
to any statement or action that may have been ascribed to them or 
to any one of them ; and we will find, in not a few instances, that 
the allegations found in ordinary Popish works on the subject are 
inaccurate, defective, or exaggerated, — that the quotation is garbled 
and mutilated, or may be explained and modified by the context, 
— or that the action is erroneously or unfairly represented in some 
of its features or accompanying circumstances. 

2d, When the real facts of the case are once ascertained, the 
next step should be to form a fair and reasonable estimate of what 
they really involve or imply, taking into account, as justice de- 
mands, the natural character and tendencies of the men indivi- 
dually, the circumstances in which they were placed, the influences 
to which they were subjected, the temptations to which they were 
exposed, and the general impressions and ordinary standard on 
such subjects in the age and country in which they lived. 

3d, There is a third step necessary in order to form a right 
estimate of the common Popish charges against the Reformers, 
and of the soundness of the conclusion which they wish to de- 
duce from them, viz. that we should not confine our attention to 
their blemishes and infirmities, real or alleged, greater or smaller, 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 59 

but take a general view of their whole character and proceedings, 
embracing, as far as we have materials, all that they felt, and said, 
and did, and endeavour in this way to form a fair estimate of what 
were their predominating desires, motives, and objects, of what 
it was that they had really at heart, and of what was the standard 
by a regard to which they strove to regulate their conduct. 

A careful application of these obviously just and fair principles 
will easily dispose of the materials which Papists have so assidu- 
ously collected for the purpose of injuring the character of the 
Reformers, and convince every intelligent and honest inquirer, 
that there is not one of the leading men among them who has 
not, with all his errors and infirmities, left' behind him sufficient 
and satisfactory evidence, so far as men can judge of their fellow- 
men, that he had been born again of the word of God through 
the belief of the truth, that he had honestly devoted himself to 
God's service, and that in what he did for the cause of the Re- 
formation, he was mainly influenced by a desire to promote the 
glory of God, to advance the prosperity of Christ's kingdom, and 
to secure the spiritual welfare of men. 

But Romanists are not the only persons who have misrepre- 
sented and calumniated the Reformers. Many have sympathized 
with and abetted the efforts of Romanists to damage the character 
of the Reformers, who had not the palliation, such as it is, which 
they can plead of avenging the damage done to their church, and 
who seem to care nothing about Popery and Protestantism as such. 
What Dr M'Crie said of John Knox holds equally true of the 
other Reformers, and has been perhaps more fully realized in the 
case of those of them who exerted a still wider and more com- 
manding influence : — 

" The increase of infidelity and indifference to religion in modern times, 
especially among the learned, has contributed in no small degree to swell the 
tide of prejudice against our Reformer. Whatever satisfaction persons of this 
description may express or feel at the reformation from Popery, as the means 
of emancipating the world from superstition and priestcraft, they naturally 
despise and dislike men who were inspired with the love of religion, and in 
whose plans of reform the acquisition of civil liberty, and the advancement of 
literature, held a subordinate place to the revival of primitive Christianity."* 

There has scarcely ever been an infidel or simi-infidel declaimer 



Life of Knox, p. 357. 6th Ed. 



60 LUTHEE. [Essay II. 

against bigotry and intolerance, however insignificant, who has 
not attempted something smart about " Calvin burning Servetus." 
Both Lord Brougham and Mr Macaulay have sunk to the level 
of rounding off a sentence in this way. And Luther, from his 
peculiar position and history, and from his special weaknesses 
and infirmities, has furnished very copious materials to so-called 
Protestant, as well as to Popish, calumniators. A combination 
of circumstances has had the effect of late years of bringing out, 
in this country, from different classes of writers, a good deal 
of matter fitted and intended to damage the character of the 
Reformers. Those who laboured long to un-Protestantize the 
English Church before they left it to join the Church of Rome, 
were of course anxious to depreciate the Reformers ; and New- 
man and Ward, who are now both Romanists, did what they 
could in this way. Moehler, a Romish divine of learning and 
ability, whose Symbolism has been much commended and read, 
has laboured skilfully to excite strong prejudices against the theo- 
logical views of the Reformers, and has succeeded all the better 
because of the appearance of candour and moderation which he 
presents, as compared with the generality of Popish controversial- 
ists. Mr Hallam, in his "History of the Literature of Europe 
during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries," was naturally 
led to speak of the writings of the Reformers ; but having only 
a very partial acquaintance with their works, and not being able, 
as he candidly enough admits, to understand much of their theo- 
logy, he very seriously misrepresents them, and especially Luther. 
Hallam's great learning, accuracy, and impartiality upon general 
and ordinary topics, are universally admitted ; but he was very 
imperfectly acquainted with the writings of the Reformers ; and 
experience seems to afford abundant evidence that men may be 
candid and impartial on most questions of a historical, political, 
and literary kind, and yet be strongly prejudiced on religious sub- 
jects. This we believe to be the case with Mr Hallam, while, as 
might be expected, his depreciatory criticisms upon the Reformers 
and the Reformation are now triumphantly quoted by Popish con- 
troversialists as the concessions of " an eminent Protestant autho- 
rity." And, lastly, Sir William Hamilton, whose reputation stands 
so deservedly high as a philosopher and a man of erudition, has 
thought proper to go out of his way in order to indulge in some 
attacks upon the character of the Reformers, first in an article in 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 61 

the Edinburgh Review* for 1834, on the Admission of Dissenters 
to English Universities ; and again, in 1843, in a pamphlet on the 
controversy about the appointment of pastors, which produced in 
that year the Disruption of the Church of Scotland. 

In consequence of these things, the late lamented Archdeacon 
Hare undertook the defence of Luther in a very elaborate and 
admirable dissertation, bearing the form of a note to his work on 
the " Mission of the Comforter," published in 1846. In this note, 
marked by the letter W, which extended to above 300 pages, 
Mr Hare, with great ability, with admirable scholarship, and a 
thorough knowledge of the subject, defended Luther from the 
misrepresentations of Hallam, Newman, Ward, Moehler, and Sir 
William Hamilton. Soon after, Sir William published his still 
incomplete edition of the works of Reid, w T ith notes and supple- 
mentary dissertations, and subjoined to it an advertisement, dated 
November 1846, in which he promised to publish soon, and pre- 
viously to any other work, a production entitled, " Contributions 
towards a True History of Luther and the Lutherans. Part L, 
containing notice of the Venerable Archdeacon^ Hare and his 
Polemic." These " Contributions " have not yet appeared ; but in 
1852, Sir William gave to the world "Discussions on Philosophy 
and Literature, Education and University Reform," in which in 
republishing the article from the Edinburgh Review containing his 
original attack upon Luther, he added to it some notes, taking 
" notice of Archdeacon Hare and his Polemic." Mr Hare had 
been requested by many, who were satisfied and delighted with 
his defence of the Reformers, to publish his note as a separate 
work ; and accordingly, after the publication, in 1852, of his 
" Contest with Rome," which we regard as upon the whole the 
ablest, and in some respects the most valuable of his works, his 
time, we believe, was chiefly occupied, amid the interruptions of 
declining health, in preparing materials for subjoining to his 
defence of Luther abundant proofs and illustrations, with an 
exposure of Sir William's recent notes. 

It is a great loss to theological literature that Mr Hare's health 
and life were not spared to enable him to complete this work. 
The " Vindication of Luther," published nearly a year ago, soon 
after his death, and now lying before us, is merely a revised re- 



* Vol. lx. 



62 LUTHEK. [Essay II. 

publication of the note W in the " Mission of the Comforter," 
though forming by itself a goodly octavo. All that was available 
of what he had been preparing for the new edition is the mere 
references to above eighty notes, which we have no doubt would 
have contained a treasure of interesting and valuable materials. 
Sir William's notes to his Discussions do not contain, or profess to 
contain, the evidence of his most offensive charges against Luther 
— charges made nine years before — evidence which he has been 
repeatedly challenged to produce. With the exception, indeed, of 
a grand theological display, abounding in blunders, on the doc- 
trine of Assurance, Sir William's new matter consists chiefly of an 
attack upon Mr Hare. Mr Hare might very easily have repelled 
and retorted Sir William's charges against him, without produc- 
ing any great amount of valuable matter ; but, from the number 
and character of the references which have been preserved *and 
published, there is every likelihood that the notes would have been 
an enduring monument of his talents and scholarship, and of his 
many noble and beautiful qualities of character. We, therefore, 
deeply lament that he was not spared to complete this work, while 
we estimate very highly what he has done, and regard his "Vindi- 
cation of Luther" as a very valuable contribution to theological 
literature, and an important service rendered to the cause of that 
Protestant evangelical truth which Luther was honoured to be 
the great instrument of reviving. 

We believe that on some important points Mr Hare's doctrinal 
views were defective and erroneous; but he had certainly imbibed 
very thoroughly both the general spirit and the specific theology 
of Luther. He was firmly established, both theoretically and prac- 
tically, in Luther's great article of a standing or a falling church, — 
the doctrine of justification by faith alone. His cordial appreciation 
of this great doctrine, and his hearty love and esteem for Luther, 
whose qualities as a man were in many respects so very different 
from his own, are among the things which satisfy those who know 
him only from his writings, that he lived by faith on the Son of 
God, that he had a claim to the love of all Christ's people for the 
truth's sake that was in him ; while he combined, in no ordinary 
degree, almost all those claims to respect and affection which are 
inferior only to this one. We are convinced that Mr Hare's re- 
putation, like Dr Arnold's, will grow and extend after his death ; 
and that even those who differed most widely from some of his 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 63 

doctrinal views, will be more and more persuaded that his early 
death was, humanly speaking, a serious loss to the cause of Christ. 

Mr Hare's thorough knowledge of Luther, and cordial affection 
for him, admirably fitted him for defending the Beformer from 
the numerous attacks which have recently been made upon him 
from a variety of quarters. We do not say that all that he has 
written in vindication of Luther is characterized by strict impar- 
tiality and by rigid accuracy. Love may operate in perverting 
men's judgments as well as hatred. But still love is the right 
state of mind to cherish in forming a judgment of our fellow-men, 
and its presence will pervert the judgment much less widely, and 
much less injuriously, than the opposite feeling. In regard to 
many subjects, indeed, it may be said that the prevalence of love 
in the heart is necessary to forming a sound and accurate judg- 
ment ; and the character of the Reformers is one of the subjects 
to which this observation applies. Mr Hare's love to Luther has 
on one or two occasions led him to judge more favourably, or 
rather less unfavourably, of Luther's conduct than perhaps a 
review of the whole circumstances would warrant, and to soften 
or slur over some of his rash and offensive expressions. But 
while this may be conceded, it is not the less true that his repre- 
sentation of the character and opinions of Luther is immeasur- 
ably more just and accurate than that given by his opponents ; 
and that in his "polemic" with them, he has established a most 
decided superiority. 

There is a great deal about Luther's character and history to 
call forth admiration and love ; while there is also a good deal 
about him to afford an excuse to those who, from whatever cause, 
whether as Papists or on some other ground, are disposed to regard 
him with opposite feelings. With many high and noble endow- 
ments, both from nature and grace, both of head and heart, which 
in many respects fitted him admirably for the great work to which 
he was called, and the important services which he rendered to the 
church and the world, there were some shortcomings and draw- 
backs both about his understanding and his temperament ; the 
results and manifestations of which have afforded many plausible 
handles to his enemies, and have occasioned corresponding annoy- 
ance and difficulty to his friends. 

Luther occupied a position, and exerted an influence in the 
history of the church, and altogether manifested a character, well 



64 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

fitted to secure for him the admiration of all who are interested 
in the advancement of Christian truth, or qualified to appreciate 
what is noble, magnanimous, fearless, and disinterested. We have 
abundant evidence of his continuing to retain the common infir- 
mities of human nature, aggravated in some respects by the system 
in which he had been originally educated, by the condition of so- 
ciety in the age and country in which he lived, and the influences 
to which, after he commenced the work of reformation, he was 
subjected; but we have also the most satisfactory evidence of his 
deep piety, of his thorough devotedness to God's service, of his 
habitual walking with God, and living by faith in the promises of 
His word. No one who surveys Luther's history and writings, 
and who is capable of forming an estimate of what piety is, can 
entertain any doubt upon this point. 

The leading service which Luther was qualified and enabled 
to render to the church, in a theological point of view, was the un- 
folding and establishing the great doctrine of justification, which 
for many ages had been grossly corrupted and perverted ; and 
bringing the truth upon this subject to bear upon the exposure of 
many of the abuses, both in theory and practice, that prevailed in 
the Church of Rome. His engrossment, to a large extent, with 
this great doctrine, combined with the peculiar character of his 
mind, led him to view almost every topic chiefly, if not exclusively, 
in its relation to forgiveness and peace of conscience, to grace and 
merit ; and thus fostered a certain tendency to exaggeration and 
extravagance in his doctrinal statements. Besides this defect in 
Luther's theology, giving it something of one-sidedness, he had 
some features of character which detract from the weight of his 
statements, and from the deference to which otherwise he might 
have appeared entitled, and which we feel disposed to accord to 
such a man as Calvin. He was naturally somewhat prone to in- 
dulge in exaggerated and paradoxical statements, to press points 
too far, and to express them in unnecessarily strong and repulsive 
terms. And this tendency he sometimes manifests not only in 
speaking of men and actions, but even in theological discussions. 
He was not characterized by that exact balance of all the mental 
powers, by that just and accurate perception of the whole relations 
and true importance of things, and by that power of carefully and 
precisely embodying in words just what he himself had deliberately 
concluded, and nothing more, which, in some men, have so strong 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 65 

a tendency to persuade us to give ourselves up to their guidance, 
under a sort of intuitive conviction that they will not lead us often 
or far astray from the paths of truth. In Luther's works, with a 
great deal to admire, to interest and impress, we often stumble 
upon statements which remind us that we must be on our guard, 
that we must exercise our own judgment, and not follow him 
blindly wherever he may choose to lead us. The leading defects 
of his character may be said to be : — 1st, The impetuosity of his 
temperament, leading often to the use of exaggerated and intem- 
perate language, both in conversation and in writing ; though, as 
has been frequently and truly remarked, very seldom leading him 
into injudicious or imprudent actions, amid all the difficulties in 
which he was involved : and 2d, a certain species of presumption 
or self-confidence, which, putting on the garb of better and higher 
principles, sometimes made him adhere with great obstinacy to 
erroneous opinions, shutting his understanding against everything 
that could be brought forward in opposition to them ; and made 
him indulge sometimes in rather ridiculous boasting. The result 
of all these qualities was, that he has left many statements of an 
intemperate and exaggerated description, which have afforded a 
great handle to his enemies, and which, when collected and set off 
by being presented in isolation from accompanying statements 
and circumstances, and in combination with each other, are apt to 
produce a somewhat uncomfortable impression. 

And then consider how this extraordinary man, of so peculiar 
a mental character and general temperament, was tried and tested. 
He occupied a very singular position, and was subjected to very 
peculiar influences. He was tried in a very unusual measure, with 
almost everything fitted to disturb and pervert, to elevate and to 
depress, with fears and hopes, with dangers and successes. Let it 
be further remembered, that of this man, who was so constituted 
and so circumstanced, there have been preserved and published 
no fewer than about 2300 letters, many of them private and con- 
fidential effusions to his friends ; and that a great deal of his 
ordinary conversation or table talk has been recorded and trans- 
mitted to us, without our having any good evidence of its being 
accurately reported. 

It is surely not to be wondered at that it should be easy to 
produce many rash, extravagant, inconsistent, and indefensible 
sayings of Luther. And if, notwithstanding the tests to which he 

VOL. I. 5 



66 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

has been subjected, he still stands out as unquestionably a man of 
high religious principle, of thorough and disinterested devotedness 
to God's service, and of many noble and elevated qualities, — all 
which most even of his depredators, except the Popish section of 
them, will probably concede, — how thoroughly base and despicable 
is it in any man to be grasping at opportunities of trying to 
damage his character and influence, by collecting and stringing 
together (perhaps exaggerating and distorting) his rash and in- 
consistent, or it may be extravagant and offensive, sentiments and 
expressions. Papists, of course, are labouring in their proper 
vocation in trying, per fas aut nefas, to damage Luther's character. 
Popish controversialists are ever ready to sacrifice conscience, and 
every manly and honourable feeling, to the interests of the church ; 
and Tractarians, following in their footsteps, have imbibed a large 
portion of their spirit. 

Of Mr Hare's " Vindication of Luther," about ninety pages 
are devoted to an exposure of the Tractarian attacks upon him 
by Newman and Ward, who have since joined the Church of 
Rome ; about forty to an exposure of a Popish attack upon him 
by Moehler ; and the remaining 170 pages are occupied with an 
answer to the assaults of " the great Protestant authorities," Mr 
Hallam and Sir William Hamilton. 

Newman had attacked Luther only incidentally, and some- 
what cautiously, in his book on "Justification;" and though he 
is convicted of several misrepresentations of Luther's opinions, 
he is upon the whole let easily off. Newman had spoken slight- 
ingly of Luther, as not being, like Augustine, a father of the 
church, but merely the founder of a school. This has given 
occasion to Mr Hare to indite the following very fine and striking 
passage : — 

" But though Luther was not what was technically termed a father, and 
could not be so, from the period when, for the good of mankind, it was or- 
dained that he should be born, yet it has pleased God that he, above all other 
men since the days of the apostles, should, in the truest and highest sense, be 
a father in Christ's church, yea, the human father and nourisher of the spiri- 
tual life of millions of souls, for generation after generation. Three hundred 
years have rolled away since he was raised, through Christ's redeeming grace, 
from the militant church into the triumphant; and throughout those three 
hundred years, and still at this day, it has been and is vouchsafed to him, — 
and so, God willing, shall it be for centuries to come, — that he should feed the 
children of half Germany with the milk of the gospel by his Catechism ; that 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 67 

he should supply the poor and simple, yea, and all classes of his countrymen, 
with words wherewith to commend their souls to God when they rise from their 
bed, and when they lie down in it ; that in his words they should invoke a 
blessing upon their daily meals, and offer up their thanks for them ; that with 
his stirring hymns they should kindle and pour out their devotion, both in the 
solemn assembly and in the sanctuary of every family ; that by his German 
words, through the blessed fruit of his labours, they should daily and hourly 
strengthen and enlighten their hearts, and souls, and minds, with that Book of 
Life in which God's mercy and truth have met together, His righteousness and 
peace have kissed each other, and are treasured up for the edification of man- 
kind unto the end of the world. If this is not to be a father in Christ's church, 
I know not what is. Nay, more, his spiritual children are not confined to his 
own country. The word of truth which he was sent to preach, has sounded 
from land to land, and was heard in our land also, coming as it did from the 
home of our forefathers, for the purification of the church, and for the guiding 
of numberless souls away from a vain confidence in the works of the flesh, to 
a living trust in their Saviour."* 

Mr Ward's assaults, originally published in the British Critic, 
and afterwards collected in his book entitled " Ideal of a Christian 
Church," are likewise based chiefly upon Luther's doctrine of 
justification, which is grossly misrepresented, in order to afford 
materials for accusing him of Antinomianism. Mr Ward is con- 
clusively convicted of gross incompetency and unfairness, nay, of 
bitter spite. But really the allegation that Luther was an Anti- 
nomian is so thoroughly contradicted by the whole tenor of his 
writings, and by the whole course of his life, and is so utterly 
destitute of all evidence, except some rash, unbecoming, and 
exaggerated statements about the law, the real meaning of which 
is evident enough to every candid inquirer, that we do not think 
it necessary to dwell upon this topic. 

Mr Hallam's attack upon Luther rests chiefly upon the same 
general ground, and is directed to show that he has made state- 
ments of an Antinomian tendency. His mode of dealing with 
this subject has more the appearance of honest ignorance than 
Mr Ward's. He is certainly, as Mr Hare has proved, and as 
indeed he himself acknowledges, very imperfectly acquainted with 
Luther's works. He is also, from whatever cause, pretty strongly 
prejudiced against him. He plainly enough indicates that he 
had been somewhat influenced, in judging of Luther, by the 
representations of Bossuet ; and as this is a topic to which we 



Pp. 83-84. 



68 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

shall have occasion afterwards to advert, in pointing ont Sir 
William Hamilton's obligations to the great Popish champion, 
we quote an interesting passage from this section of the Vindi- 
cation : — 

" An explanation, however, of this, and of much more, seems to be afforded 
by the first sentences in Mr Hallam's remarks on Luther : ' It would not be 
just, probably, to give Bossuet credit in every part of that powerful delinea- 
tion of Luther's theological tenets, with which he begins the History of the 
Variations of Protestant Churches. Nothing, perhaps, in polemical eloquence, 
is so splendid as this chapter. The eagle of Meaux is there truly seen, lordly 
of form, fierce of eye, terrible in his beak and claws. But he is too determined 
a partisan to be trusted by those who seek the truth without regard to persons 
and denominations. His quotations from Luther are short, and in French. 
I have failed in several attempts to verify the references.' Mr Hallam, who 
here and elsewhere expresses such fervent admiration for Bossuet's eloquence, 
says of Luther's Latin works : ' Their intemperance, their coarseness, their 
inelegance, their scurrility, their wild paradoxes that menace the foundations 
of religious morality, are not compensated, so far at least as my slight ac- 
quaintance with them extends, by much strength or acuteness, and still less 
by any impressive eloquence.' To me, I own, in the face of this mild verdict, 
Luther, — if we take the two masses of his writings, those in Latin and those 
in his own tongue, which display different characters of style, according to 
the persons and objects they are designed for, in the highest qualities of 
eloquence, in the faculty of presenting grand truths, moral and spiritual ideas, 
clearly, vividly, in words which elevate and enlighten men's minds, and stir 
their hearts and control their wills, — seems incomparably superior to Bossuet ; 
almost as superior as Shakspeare to Racine, or as Ullswater to the Serpentine. 
In fact, when turning from one to the other, I have felt at times as if I were 
passing out of a gorgeous, crowded drawing*- room, with its artificial lights and 
dizzying sounds, to run up a hill at sunrise. The wide and lasting effect which 
Luther's writings produced on his own nation and on the world, is the best 
witness of their power. 

" I should not have touched on this point unless it were plain that Mr 
Hallam's judgment on Luther had been greatly swayed by the ' Histoire des 
Variations.' It is somewhat strange to begin one's account of a man with 
saying, that ' it would not be just, probably, to give credit in every parV to what 
a determined, able, and not very scrupulous enemy says of him, writing with 
the express purpose of detecting all possible evil in him and his cause. In 
truth, what could well be less just than this supererogatory candour ? In no 
court of law would such an invective be attended to, except so far as it was 
borne out by the evidence adduced. Mr Hallam says he had failed in several 
attempts to verify the references. If he had succeeded, he would probably 
have found that the passages cited are mostly misrepresented. How far the 
misrepresentation is wilful, I do not take upon myself to pronounce. Bossuet's 
mind was so uncongenial to Luther's, so artificial, so narrow, sharing in the 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 69 

national incapacity for seeing anything except through a French eye-glass ; 
his conception of Faith, as I have had occasion to remark elsewhere, was so 
meagre, so alien from Luther's ; and the shackles imposed upon him by his 
church so disqualified him for judging fairly of its great enemy, — that we need 
not be surprised at any amount of misunderstanding in him when he came 
forward as an advocate in such a cause. Still, however fiercely the ' eagle of 
Meaux ' may have desired to use his beak and claws, he might as well have 
pecked and clawed at Mount Ararat as at him whom God was pleased to endow 
with a mountain of strength, when He ordained that he should rise for the 
support of the church out of the flood of darkness and corruption. 

" Here, as the assertion I have made concerning Bossuet's misrepresen- 
tations should not be made unsupported by proofs, I will cite two or three 
examples, showing how the quotations from Luther, which in his pages seem 
very reprehensible, become innocent when viewed along with the context in 
their original home. Nor shall these examples be culled out from the six 
books employed in the attack on Luther. They shall be taken from the first 
sections of that attack ; thus they will better illustrate the manner in which 
it is carried on."* 

This is followed up by what is certainly very conclusive proof 
that both Bossuet and Mr Hallam have put forth some gross mis- 
representations of Luther's sentiments. 

Mr Hallam and Mr Ward are about equally incompetent to 
form a correct estimate of Luther's theological views ; but Mr 
Hallam is much the more fair and honest of the two. Mr Ward 
labours to collect evidence from all quarters against Luther, and 
Mr Hare gives the following summary of the results of his re- 
searches : — 

" The evidence which Mr Ward's learning has collected in this matter, is a 
quotation taken from the English translation of 'Audin's Life of Luther;' two 
quotations from the English translation of l Moehler's Symbolik ; ' a quotation 
from an article of his own in the British Critic, which appears there to have 
been borrowed from the French translation of Moehier ; and certain extracts 
from an article in the Edinburgh Preview, and from a pamphlet on the recent 
schism in the Church of Scotland. Verily, a formidable array of witnesses, 
picked out with a due recognition of the judicial maxim, that second-hand 
testimony is to be rejected! To one point, however, they do bear conclusive 
testimony, which is confirmed by all the rest of the volume, namely, to Mr 
Ward's utter incompetency for pronouncing an opinion on any question relat- 
ing to the German Keformation." f 

The quotations from Audin are not of much importance ; but 
Mr Hare subjects to a thorough scrutiny the materials which 



* Pp. 12-14. f P- 165. 



70 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

Ward lias borrowed from Moehler and Sir William Hamilton ; 
and the investigation of these things forms the most important 
portion of his Vindication. Moehler's Symbolism has been so 
much praised of late, having been even pronounced to be the 
most formidable attack on Protestantism since the time of Bossuet, 
that it may be interesting to our readers to know something of 
the general character of this work, and of the answers it has 
called forth. On these points Mr Hare writes as follows : — 

" Here, — as Moehler's work has been translated into English, as it has 
been much bepraised by our Romanizers, and has evidently exercised a great 
deal of influence among them, and as it is well calculated to foster most 
delusive prejudices against the Reformation, and in favour of the Church of 
Rome, in readers prepared by visions about the glories of the middle ages, and 
who are ready to regard the Protestant churches as outcasts from the pale of 
Christianity, because, through whatever cause, they have adopted a different 
form of government, — let me be allowed to remark, that, able as the .Symbolik 
certainly is, considering the cause it has to maintain, and plausible as it must 
needs seem to such as have nothing more than a superficial acquaintance with 
the topics which it discusses, still, in addition to the errors already spoken of, 
its value in the service of truth is destroyed by two pervading fallacies. In 
the first place, while the author's professed object, as is intimated by his title, 
is to compare the Protestant Symbolical Books with those of the Romish 
church, in order to ascertain and examine the doctrinal antitheses between 
them, he soon finds out that if he confines himself to these deliberate dogma- 
tical expressions of doctrine he shall not be able to make out a case ; there- 
fore he scrapes together all sorts of passages, not merely out of professedly 
dogmatical treatises, — which, under certain restrictions, would be allowable, — 
but out of occasional pamphlets, out of sermons, out of private letters, nay, 
even out of Luther's ' Table Talk,' to kindle and fan an odium which he can- 
not otherwise excite. Yet it is plain that such a procedure can only mislead 
and dupe the reader with regard to the great subject-matter of the contro- 
versy ; which is not, whether such and such individual Protestants may not 
at times have written extravagantly or unadvisedly, but is instituted to deter- 
mine the relative value of the body of truth set forth by each church in the 
solemn confession of its faith. Strange too it may seem, that the thought 
of the ' Lettres Provinciales ' did not come across him, and warn him of the 
tremendous retribution he might provoke. Moreover, after he has thus craftily 
shifted the whole ground of the contrast, so that, while it is nominally 
between the symbolical declarations of doctrine recognised by the opposite 
churches, in lieu of the Protestant symbolical declarations, he is continually 
slipping in whatever errors he can pick up in the most trivial writings of the 
Reformers, and these too not seldom aggravated by gross misrepresentations, 
— even this does not content him : a like trick must be played with the other 
scale. As the one side is degraded below the reality, the other is exalted 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 71 

above it. The fallacy spoken of above, in p. 32, runs through the whole book. 
The opposition of the Reformers is represented as having been directed not 
against the gross corruptions and errors which prevailed when they began the 
conflict, but against the modified exposition of Romish doctrine, drawn up 
with such singular adroitness at the semi-reformation of Trent : nay, even this 
is often refined and spiritualized by the interpolation of views belonging to the 
theology and philosophy of the nineteenth century. Hence it is not to be 
wondered at that Moehler's work should impose on such readers as do not see 
through these fallacies, but suppose his representations of the opposite parties 
to be correct. 

" Yet its influence ought to have been exploded long ago. For never in the 
history of controversies was there a completer victory than that gained by 
the champions of Protestant truth who replied to it. Indeed, the attack, in- 
stead of being injurious, was eminently beneficial to the German Protestants. 
It led them to examine the foundations of their strength, — to bring out the 
divine armour of truth stored up in the writings of the Reformers. Among 
the answers which Moehler called forth, some, which are highly spoken of, — 
for instance, Hengstenberg's and Marheineke's, — I have not seen ; but the two 
that I have read are triumphant* That by Nitzsch is a masterly assertion and 
vindication of the great Protestant principles which Moehler assailed, and its 
calm and dignified tone and spirit, its philosophic power and deep Christian 
wisdom, render it one of the noblest among polemical works. Baur, on the 
other hand, takes up his Herculean club and smashes Moehler's book to atoms. 
Immeasurably superior to his adversary, through his vast learning and won- 
derful dialectic power, he pursues him through sophism after sophism, unravels 
fallacy after fallacy, and strips off mis-statement after mis-statement, till he 
leaves him at last in a condition of pitiable nakedness and forlornness. In 
several of Baur's other works, the Hegelian predominates over the Christian, 
to the great disparagement and sacrifice of Christian truth ; and his criticism 
has of late years become extravagantly destructive ; even in his answer to 
Moehler, his philosophy at times is too obtrusive. But his vindication of the 
doctrines of the Reformation, and his exposure of the Tridentine fallacies, as 
well as of Moehler's, is complete." * 

Moehler has produced and given prominence to what is cer- 
tainly the worst and most offensive passage that has yet been found 
in Luther ; and Mr Hare has carefully considered it, and conclu- 
sively defended it, — not certainly from the charge of great rashness, 
extravagance, and offensiveness, in point of phraseology, but from 
that which the words, taken by themselves, seem at first view to 
suggest, viz. of embodying a deliberate exhortation to the practice 
of immorality. As this will probably continue for some time to 
be a favourite topic of invective with Romanists and Eomanizers, 



* Pp. 169-172. 



72 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

it is proper that we should give some general idea of the point, 
while we must refer to the Vindication for particulars.* The 
passage from Luther, as given in the English translation of 
Moehler's Symbolism,! is this : " Sin lustily (pecca foriiter), but 
be yet more lusty in faith, and rejoice in Christ, who is the 
conqueror of sin, of death, and of the world. Sin we must, 
so long as we remain here. It suffices, that through the riches 
of the glory of God, we know the Lamb which taketh away the 
sins of the world. From Him no sin will sever us, though a 
million times in a day we should fornicate or commit murder." 
The question here naturally occurs, To whom was this startling 
statement addressed ? And it is no unimportant point in Luther's 
defence, that these words form part of a letter addressed to 
Melancthon in 1521, when Luther was living in concealment 
in the Wartburg. Mr Hare refers to this topic in this way : — 

" Verily it does seem here as though, hell were casting up its spray into 
heaven. Still, after our ample experience of the manner in which words may 
be misrepresented, and after the thousand thousand proofs afforded by Luther's 
writings and life that he did know something of the gospel, we will not be 
disheartened. At all events, we will try to make out what these awful words 
can mean, — to whom they can have been said, — for what purpose. Were they 
said to Simon de Montfort when he marched against the Albigenses ? or to 
Alva when he entered on his government in the Netherlands ? or to Louis XIV. 
when he revoked the Edict of Nantes ? or to poor Mary when she mounted the 
throne after the death of her brother Edward ? Were they a dram administered 
to Charles IX. and to Catherine of Medicis on the eve of St Bartholomew ? or 
a billet doux sent to Charles II. during the progress of his conversion ? or were 
they a motto written up in the halls of the Inquisition? or can it be that 
Luther was once engaged in a friendly correspondence with Munzer? or with 
Alexander VI. ? No ; but to Melancthon, of all men that ever lived! Not to 
Munzer ; not to Alexander VI. ; not to Leo X. ; not to Clement VII. ; but 
to Melancthon ! A strange person, truly, to choose as the confidant of such 
a doctrine, — as the recipient of such an exhortation ! The tempter, against 
whom Luther so often battled, must for once have gained complete possession 
of him, and turned him into an instrument for destroying the soul of his 
younger friend. "J 

Mr Hare then proceeds to show, from a careful consideration 
of the circumstances in which, and the objects for which, the letter 
was written, and from an accurate analysis of the train of thought 
that runs through it, how it was that Luther came to use such 



* Pp. 178-194. f Vol. i. p. 183. % Pp. 179, 180. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 73 

words, without, of course, having had the remotest intention of 
teaching that sin was a light matter, or encouraging Melancthon 
to commit it. We must refer to the Vindication for the details 
of all this, but we will quote the concluding passage : — 

" Now in the passage of Luther which we are considering, the real off en- 
siveness lies in the monstrous exaggeration of the language. The indignation 
bestowed upon him might, indeed, have been bestowed most deservedly upon 
the truly atrocious and blasphemous proposition whereby the venders of indul- 
gences, whom he assailed, tried to lure purchasers for their trumpery, — Venias 
papules tantas esse, ut solvere possint hominem, etiamsi quis per impossibile Dei 
Genitricem violasset. Such a proposition is indeed an abomination in the sight 
of God and man ; yet this doctrine, which Mr Ward might well call too bad 
for the devils, the flagitious hierarchy encouraged ; or at least they would not 
repress and condemn their emissaries for proclaiming it, even when called 
upon and earnestly implored to do so. Luther's proposition, on the other 
hand, is fundamentally true ; his words render it probable that he was think- 
ing of David's crimes ; the addition of millies millies, as everybody acquainted 
with his writings will recognise at once, is a mere Lutheranism. Most readers 
will remember his answer to Spalatin, with regard to the advice of his friends, 
who would have dissuaded him from venturing to Worms, that even if there 
were as many devils in Worms as there were tiles on the house-tops, still he would 
go thither. So, again, in his grand letter to the Elector from the Wartburg, 
when he declares his resolution of returning to Wittenberg, he says he will not 
be withheld by fear of Duke George. This I know full well of myself if affairs 
at Leipsic were in the same case as now at Wittenberg, I would ride thither even 
though {your Electoral Grace must forgive my foolish speech) it were to rain 
pure Duke Georges for nine days, and each one of them were nine times more 
furious than this. These instances are notorious ; a multitude of similar ones 
might be cited from Luther's writings, especially from those belonging to this 
critical period of his life, when all his powers were stretched beyond themselves 
by the stress of the conflict. To our nicer ears such expressions may seem in 
bad taste. Be it so. When a Titan is walking about among the pigmies, the 
earth seems to rock beneath his tread. Mount Blanc would be out of keeping 
in Regent's Park ; and what would be the outcry if it were to toss its head 
and shake off an avalanche or two ? Such, however, is the dulness of the 
elementary powers, they have not apprehended the distinction between force 
and violence. In like manner, when the adamantine bondage in which men's 
hearts, and souls, and minds had been held for centuries, was to be burst, it 
was almost inevitable that the power which was to burst this should not mea- 
sure its movements by the rules of polished life. Erasmus did so ; Melancthon 
did so : but a thousand Erasmuses would never have effected the Reformation 5 
nor would a thousand Melancthons, without Luther to go before him and to 
animate him."* 



Pp. 191, 192. 



74 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

We now proceed to consider Sir William Hamilton's attacks 
upon Luther and the other Reformers. These Mr Hare has ex- 
posed fully and with severity — great, but not greater than they 
deserve. Sir William entered upon the work of assailing the 
character of the Reformers spontaneously and without call. In 
an article in the Edinburgh Review for 1834, on the Admission of 
Dissenters to English Universities, he laid hold of an excuse for 
making the averment,* " That there is hardly an obnoxious doc- 
trine to be found among the modern Lutherans (the Rationalists) 
which has not its warrant and example in the writings of Luther 
himself;" and proceeded to establish this position by what he 
calls a " hasty anthology of some of Luther's opinions, and in his 
own words, literally translated." He then gives quotations from 
Luther, under the three heads of speculative theology, practical 
theology, and biblical criticism. Under the first head, his quota- 
tions consist only of four short passages upon the one subject of 
the procedure of God in regard to sin and sinners. Under the 
second, he merely gives some extracts from a single document, 
setting forth the grounds on which Luther and Melancthon gave 
their consent to the Landgrave of Hesse marrying a second wife, 
while, at the same time, he continued to live with the first. He 
has thus brought forward only one topic under the head of specu- 
lative theology, and only one topic under the head of practical 
theology. And on neither of these two topics can it be said that 
the modern Lutherans follow the " warrant and example in the 
writings of Luther himself," though it was professedly to establish 
this that Sir William collected his " hasty anthology." Nine 
years afterwards, — at the era of the disruption of the Church of 
Scotland, — Sir William published a pamphlet on the election of 
pastors, entitled, "Be not Schismatics, be not Martyrs by Mistake; 
a Demonstration that the principle of non-intrusion, so far from 
being fundamental in the Church of Scotland, is subversive of 
the fundamental principles of that and every other Presbyterian 
Church Establishment." In this pamphlet he again, without any 
provocation, assailed the character of the Reformers, though this 
had nothing more to do with the election of pastors than with 
the admission of Dissenters into English universities. In this 
pamphlet, indeed, he retracted the charge which, nine years before, 



* Vol. lx. p. 225. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 75 

in the Edinburgh Review, he had brought against the Reformers in 
connection with the Landgrave's second marriage, that they were 
guilty in that affair of a " skulking compromise of all professed 
principle." But he retracted this charge only to substitute another 
in its room, — viz. that they approved of polygamy as good and 
lawful, nay, that they wished to have polygamy sanctioned by the 
civil law, and did something, though unsuccessfully, in order to 
bring about this result. And to this new form of the charge under 
the head of practical theology, he added the offensive allegation, 
that Luther publicly preached in recommendation of incontinence, 
adultery, and incest. As some of these charges against Luther 
had not been broached before by any of his opponents, it will be 
proper to give the very terms in which they were, for the first 
time, promulgated to the world, by Sir William Hamilton, at 
Edinburgh, in the year of grace 1843 : — ■ 

" Look, then, to the great author and the great guide of the great religious 
revolution itself — to Luther and Melancthon ; even they, great and good as 
they both were, would, had they been permitted by the wisdom of the world 
to carry their theological speculations into practice, have introduced a state 
of things which every Christian of every denomination will now confess, 
would not only have turned the Reformation into a curse, but have subverted 
all that is most sacred by moral and religious law. 

"Among other points of papal discipline, the zeal of Luther was roused 
against ecclesiastical celibacy and monastic vows ; and whither did it carry 
him ? Not content to reason against the institution within natural limits and 
on legitimate grounds, his fervour led him to deny explicitly, and in every 
relation, the existence of chastity, as a physical impossibility, — led him pub- 
licly to preach (and who ever preached with the energy of Luther !) incon- 
tinence, adultery, incest even, as not only allowable, but, if practised under 
the prudential regulations which he himself lays down, unobjectionable, and 
even praiseworthy. The epidemic spread, — a fearful dissolution of manners 
throughout the sphere of the Reformer's influence was, for a season, the 
natural result. The ardour of the boisterous Luther infected, among others, 
even the ascetic and timorous Melancthon. Polygamy awaited only the per- 
mission of the civil ruler to be promulgated as an article of the Reformation ; 
and had this permission not been significantly refused (whilst, at the same 
time, the epidemic in Wittenberg was homceopathically alleviated, at least, by 
the similar but more violent access in Munster), it would not have been the 
fault of the fathers of the Reformation if Christian liberty has remained less 
ample than Mohammedan licence. As it was, polygamy was never aban- 
doned by either Luther or Melancthon as a religious speculation : both, in more 
than a single instance, accorded the formal sanction of their authority to its 
practice, — by those who were above the law ; and had the civil prudence 



76 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

of the imprudent Henry VIII. not restrained him, sensual despot as he was, 
from carrying their spontaneous counsel into effect, a plurality of wives might 
now have been a privilege as religiously contended for in England as in 
Turkey."* 

" I do not found merely or principally upon passages known to Bossuet, 
Bayle, etc., and through them to persons of ordinary information. These, I 
admit, would not justify all I have asserted in regard to the character of the 
doctrine preached by Luther. 

" I do not found my statement of the general opinion of Luther and 
Melancthon in favour of polygamy on their special allowance of a second wife 
to Philip the Magnanimous, or on any expressions contained in their Consilium 
on that occasion. On the contrary, that Consilium, and the circumstances 
under which it was given, may be, indeed always have been, adduced to show 
that in the case of the Landgrave they made a sacrifice of eternal principle 
to temporary expedience. The reverse of this I am able to prove, in a chrono- 
logical series of testimonies by them to the religious legality of polygamy as 
a general institution, consecutively downwards from their earliest commen- 
taries on the Scriptures and other purely abstract treatises. So far, therefore, 
was there from being any disgraceful compromise of principle in the sanction 
accorded by them to the bigamy of the Landgrave of Hesse, that they only, 
in that case, carried their speculative doctrine (held, by the way, also by 
Milton) into practice ; although the prudence they had by that time acquired 
rendered them, on worldly grounds, averse from their sanction being made 
publicly known. I am the more anxious to correct this general mistake touch- 
ing the motives of these illustrious men, because I was myself, on a former 
occasion, led to join in the injustice." f 

It was in these circumstances, and with such a case before him, 
that Mr Hare prepared and published in 1846 his elaborate and 
most valuable Note in defence of Luther in the second volume of 
the " Mission of the Comforter," and revised it for republication 
in a separate form previously to his death in 1855, notwithstanding 
Sir William's threat of an answer in 1846, and his attempt at self- 
defence, or rather at retaliation, in the notes to his " Discussions," 
published in 1852. When a man in Sir William's position comes 
forward ultroneously, and without call adduces such charges as 
these against Luther and his fellow-reformers, he must lay his 
account with his allegations being narrowly scrutinized, and his 
evidence, if he produce any, being carefully sifted. Sir William's 
acknowledged eminence as a philosopher and a man of erudition, 
gives a certain influence to anything he may choose to aver, and 
makes it the more necessary that such statements as those we have 



Be not Schismatics" etc., pp. 7, 8. f Ibid. p. 59 of 2d Ed. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 77 

quoted from him should be scrutinized with care, and, if found 
erroneous, exposed with all plainness. 

The facts, that Sir William brought forward such charges, 
couched in such a tone and spirit, first in an article in the 
Edinburgh Review, on the Admission of Dissenters to English 
Universities, and then again, nine years after, in a pamphlet on 
non-intrusion, or the election of pastors, indicate very plainly a 
certain animus with respect to the men so assailed : which is not 
disproved by his calling Luther and Melancthon " great and good 
men ;" and by his assuring us* that, " so far from disliking Luther, 
we admire him with all his aberrations (for he never paltered with 
the truth), not only as one of the ablest, but as one of the best 
of men." On the same page where this profession occurs, Sir 
William has made the following statements about the Reformer, 
— statements, it should be noticed, published for the first time in 
1852 : — "Luther was betrayed into corresponding extravagances 
by an assurance of his personal inspiration ; of which, indeed, he 
was no less confident than of his ability to perform miracles. He 
disclaimed the pope, he spurned the church, but, varying in almost 
all else, he never doubted of his own infallibility." The man who 
made these statements knows, and every man who has ever read 
anything concerning Luther knows, that in 1545, the year before 
his death, the great Reformer wrote a preface to a collected edi- 
tion of his works, which began with these words : — " I have long 
and earnestly resisted those who wished my books, or rather the 
confusions of my lucubrations, to be published ; both because I 
was unwilling that the labours of the ancients should be covered 
up by my novelties, and the reader hindered from reading them, 
and because now, by God's grace, there are many methodical 
books, among which the Commonplaces of Philip excel, by wdiich 
the theologian and the bishop may be beautifully formed, espe- 
cially since the sacred Scriptures may now be had in almost every 
language ; while my books, as the w T ant of method in the events 
occasioned and necessitated, are, indeed, but a rude and indigested 
chaos, which it is not easy now even for myself to bring into 
order. Induced by these considerations, I wished all my books 
to be buried in perpetual oblivion, that there might be room 
for better ones." This preface also contains the following state- 



Discussions, 2d Edit. p. 506. 



78 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

ments : — " But, before all things, I beseech the pious reader, and 
I beseech him for our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, that he would 
read these productions with judgment, nay, with much compas- 
sion ;" "I narrate these things, excellent reader, for this reason, 
that, if you are about to read my little works, you may remember 
that I have been one of those who, as Augustine writes of himself, 
have made progress by writing and teaching, and that I am not 
one of those who from nothing suddenly become great, though 
they have done, or tried, or experienced nothing, but with one 
glance at Scripture exhaust its whole spirit." Sir William knows 
that in the same year, 1545, Melancthon, with Luther's consent, 
published a collection of the " Disputations or Propositions," put 
forth and discussed by him in the theological school at Witten- 
berg, from 1519 to 1545; and that Luther wrote a preface to 
them, which began with these words : — " I permit these ' Disputa- 
tions or Propositions ' of mine, handled from the beginning of my 
cause in opposition to the papacy and the kingdom of the Sophists, 
to be published, chiefly in order that the greatness of the cause, 
and the success therein divinely granted to me, may not exalt me. 
For in these is clearly shown my ignominy, — that is, my weakness 
and ignorance, which led me at first to try the matter with the 
greatest fear and trembling." 

Sir William knows, and even " persons of ordinary informa- 
tion" know, that innumerable statements, similar in substance and 
spirit to what have been quoted from these two prefaces, are found 
in Luther's writings ; and yet, knowing all this, he ventures to 
assert, that Luther had " an assurance of his personal inspiration," 
and " never doubted of his own infallibility." Every one knows, 
that on some occasions Luther showed a dogged obstinacy in 
maintaining errors, and an unwarranted confidence that they were 
truths, and that he occasionally talked about himself in a style 
tli at somewhat resembled presumptuous, self-complacent boasting. 
Sir William, we dare say, could easily produce a copious anthology 
of this sort. But this would be no sufficient proof of the truth of 
the charge, that Luther " was assured of 'his personal inspiration," 
and " never doubted of his own infallibility," even though it were 
not contradicted by the passages we have quoted, and by many 
others of similar import. These passages conclusively disprove 
the charge, unless, indeed, it be alleged that they were altogether 
hypocritical, and expressed feelings which Luther never enter- 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 79 

tained ; and no human being but a thorough-bred Papist could be 
base enough to believe this. 

The adduction of this baseless charge against Luther, and the 
adduction of it for the first time in 1852, six years after Mr Hare 
had exposed the charges of 1834 and 1843, must satisfy every 
intelligent man, that Sir William's statements about the character 
of the Reformer are entitled to no weight or deference, and ought 
to be received with the strongest suspicion. 

Sir William has turned over a good many books, and picked 
up a good deal of information of a miscellaneous and superficial, 
though often recondite, description, upon some theological subjects, 
and evidently thinks that he is entitled to treat with contempt 
all the existing professional cultivators of theological literature. 
The eminence he has reached in his own department, the con- 
fidence with which he dogmatizes on theological and ecclesiasti- 
cal topics, and the real extent of his knowledge regarding them, 
though it is much less than he claims credit for, are fitted to give 
weight to his statements with a certain class of the community ; 
while, at the same time, as we are persuaded, and think we can 
prove, he has gone astray in almost all the instances in which he 
has meddled with that class of subjects. Sir William resembles 
Bayle in many respects, — in the vigour and versatility of his in- 
tellect, in the variety and extent of his erudition, and in his pro- 
pensity to deal with ecclesiastical questions ; but he is greatly 
inferior to that famous sceptic in real love for historical accuracy, 
in patient and deliberate investigation of the materials of proof, 
and, above all, in that sound judgment, strong sense, and practical 
sagacity, which, in dealing with historical evidence, are far more 
valuable than metaphysical depth or subtilty. Sir William has 
some of Bayle' s bad qualities, without his good ones ; and this 
furnishes an explanation of the position which we do not hesitate 
to lay down, viz. that in all the leading instances in which he has 
taken up theological or ecclesiastical questions, he has exhibited 
not only blundering and inaccuracy, but a state of mind and feel- 
ing offensive to the real friends of truth and righteousness. We 
think the time has come when this position should be openly and 
explicitly laid down and pressed upon public notice, in order to 
prevent the mischief which the influence of Sir William's name is 
fitted to do, in matters in which no deference whatever is due to 
him, and which no man must be permitted to misrepresent ; and 



/ 



80 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

we willingly avail ourselves of the assistance of Mr Hare's admir- 
able Vindication, in order to establish this, so far as concerns his 
offensive attack upon Luther and his fellow-reformers. 

We have already mentioned that Sir William's original attack 
upon Luther, published in the Edinburgh Review for 1834, and 
repeated in the "Discussions" in 1852, consisted chiefly of an 
ascription to him of erroneous and dangerous opinions : — 1st, 
On speculative theology ; 2d, On practical theology ; and 3d, On 
biblical criticism; — and that he promised to give Luther's opinions 
" in his own words literally translated," thereby professing to have 
himself translated Luther's words from a personal examination of 
the original. The whole of what he produces as a specimen 
of Luther's speculative theology, consists of four short sentences, 
amounting in all to eight lines, and bears upon the one point of 
the purposes and procedure of God in regard to sin and sinners. 
Now Mr Hare has proved that these eight lines, given originally 
in the Review without any references, and as if they were one con- 
tinuous extract, are made up of four scraps from different parts 
of the treatise, " De Servo Arbitrio ;" and that they were taken 
not from the original, but from Bossuet's " History of the Varia- 
tions of the Protestant Churches," where they are given with some 
deviations from the original that are fitted to make them rather 
more offensive. Mr Hare's proof that Sir William's extracts had, 
been taken mediately or immediately from Bossuet was so perfectly 
conclusive, that it could not possibly be answered or evaded, and 
Sir William was under the necessity of having recourse either to 
confession or to silence. He chose the former and more honour- 
able alternative ; though to a man of his peculiar temperament 
such a confession must have been very painful and mortifying, 
especially as in the interval between the commission of the offence 
and Mr Hare's public exposure of it, he had disclaimed founding 
" upon passages known to Bossuet, Bayle, etc., and through them 
to persons of ordinary information." As confession is not an 
exercise in which Sir William often indulges, and as our readers, 
who are probably more familiar with his boastings, may be anxious 
to see how he performs it, we give it in his own words : — 

"In regard to the testimonies from Luther under this first head, but under 
this alone, I must make a confession. There are few things to which I feel a 
greater repugnance than relying upon quotations at second-hand. Now those 
under this head were not taken immediately from Luther's treatise, ' De 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 81 

Servo Arbitrio,' in which they are all contained. I had indeed more than 
once read that remarkable work, and once attentively, marking, as is my 
wont, the more important passages ; but at the time of writing this article, 
my copy was out of immediate reach, and the press being urgent, I had no 
leisure for a reperusal. In these circumstances, finding that the extracts from 
it in Theoduls Gastmahl corresponded, so far as they went, with those also 
given by Bossuet, and as, from my own recollection (and the testimony, I 
think, of TVerdermann), they fairly represented Luther's doctrine ; I literally 
translated the passages, even in their order, as given by Von Stark (and in Dr 
Kentsinger's French version). Stark, I indeed now conjecture, had Bossuet 
in his eye. I deem it right to make this avowal, and to acknowledge that I 
did what 1 account wrong. But, again, I have no hesitation in now, after full 
examination, deliberately saying, that I do not think these extracts, whether 
by Bossuet, or by Stark and Bossuet, to be unfairly selected, to be unfaithfully 
translated, to be garbled, or to misrepresent in any way Luther's doctrine ; 
in particular his opinions touching the divine predestination and the human 
will."* 

Sir William's defence, in substance, is, that he, or rather 
Bossuet, had not really misrepresented Luther ; and that the 
statements as they stand in the original are as strong and startling 
as in Bossuet' s French or in his own English. This of course has 
nothing to do with the matter, in so far as it involves a question 
of scholar-like acting. But as, in this aspect of the affair, Sir 
William has frankly confessed that he acted wrong, we shall 
say nothing more about it. We cannot, however, concede that 
Bossuet and Sir William have correctly exhibited Luther's actual 
statements. Mr Hare has proved their incorrectness, though 
perhaps he has somewhat overrated the magnitude of the differ- 
ences in point of substance between the original and the transla- 
tions. There is only one of the four scraps to which Sir William 
in his defence refers specifically or with any detail ; and a brief 
notice of what he says about it will prove that even in what 
he says "now, after full examination, deliberately," he has not 
reached complete accuracy. The second of the four sentences 
given in the JRevieiv, — and given as if it were part of one and the 
same passage along with the other three, this of itself being fitted 
to convey an unfair impression, even though the whole had been 
correctly translated, — is in these words : " All things take place 
by the eternal and invariable will of God, who blasts and shatters 
in pieces the freedom of the will ; " and he now, " after full ex- 



* Discussions, 2d Ed. pp. 506-7. 
VOL. I. 



82 



LUTHER. 



[Essay II. 



animation," gives it in his " Discussions,"* in the same words, 
except that he substitutes " which" for "who." Bossuet's French 
— Sir William's original — is this : f " Que sa prescience et la 
providence divine fait que toutes choses arriv'ent par une im- 
muable, eternelle, et inevitable volonte de Dieu, qui foudroie 
et met en pieces tout le libre arbitre." Sir William's remark 
upon this passage is as follows : " I must not, however, here for- 
get to acknowledge an error, or rather an inadvertence of mine, 
which has afforded a ground for Mr Hare to make, as usual, a 
futile charge against Bossuet. In the second of the above ex- 
tracts, not having Luther's original before me, I had referred 
the relative pronoun to ( God,' whereas it should have been to 
' the will of God.' In the versions of Stark and Bossuet it is 
ambiguous, and I applied it wrongly.":}: Now it is not true, as 
Sir William here asserts, that it was his error or inadvertence in 
translating Bossuet's "qui" by "who," while it might equally 
mean " which," that led Mr Hare to charge Bossuet with mis- 
representing Luther's meaning. Mr Hare has said nothing 
suggesting or implying this, and he has made statements plainly 
precluding it. But the strange thing is, that while Sir William's 
statement necessarily implies that in Luther's original there is a 
relative pronoun, on the right application and translation of which 
the sense somewhat depends, the fact is, that no such relative 
pronoun exists except' in Bossuet ; that Sir William has not yet, 
"after full examination," fulfilled his promise to give us "Luther's 
opinions in his own words literally translated ; " and that the 
difference between what Luther said and what Sir William 
continues to ascribe to him is not wholly unimportant. The 
original passage in Luther consists of two sentences as follow : 
" Est itaque et hoc in primis necessarium et salutare Christiano 
nosse, quod Deus nihil prsescit contingenter, sed quod omnia 
incommutabili et seterna, infallibilique voluntate et prsevidet et 



proponit et facit. 

liberum arbitrium. 

debent hoc fulmen vel negare, vel dissimulare, aut alia ratione a 



Hoc fulmine sternitur et conteritur penitus 
Ideo qui liberum arbitrium volunt assertum, 



se abicrere." 



* Pp. 507, 508. 

f Liv. ii. sect. 17. 

t P. 512. 

|| Luther's Latin "\Yorks, 



Jena, 



1557, torn. iii. folio 170. TTe have 
added the next sentence, to exhibit 
the meaning more fully. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 83 

Now there is no relative pronoun here, to connect the crushing 
of the free-will either with the Deus or the voluntas, as Bossuet 
and Sir William represent it. Sir William originally ascribed it 
to the Deus ; he now ascribes it to the voluntas : whereas Luther 
ascribes it to neither ; but breaks off from them into a new sen- 
tence, and ascribes it to hoc fulmen. What this fulmen was must 
be ascertained from the general scope of the passage ; and when 
this is taken into account, it becomes perfectly manifest that the 
crushing of free-will is ascribed neither to the Deus nor to the 
voluntas, strictly speaking, but to the great truth or fact, that God 
certainly foresees and governs all things. Even if this difference 
were more insignificant than it is, this would be no excuse for 
giving so garbled an extract from Luther, and so incorrect a 
translation of his words. Bossuet did not promise to translate 
literally, and yet he has given Luther's words more fully and 
correctly than Sir William, who did. Bossuet has acted unfairly, 
indeed, in overleaping the barrier of the sentence, in extinguishing 
the fulmen, and in ascribing the crushing of the free-will directly 
to the voluntas, if not to the Deus. Sir William adopts this in- 
accuracy from him, and he continues to adhere to it even " after 
full examination" of the original; while he also perpetrates the 
additional unfairness of leaving out the first part of the sentence, 
by the introduction of a portion of which even Bossuet indicated, 
that it was the foreknowledge and providence of God about which 
Luther was here discoursing. 

This is a very curious specimen of blundering. But its im- 
portance, we admit, lies chiefly in its bearing upon Sir William, 
and the question of the reliance to be placed upon the accuracy 
of his statements. That rash and exaggerated sentiments and 
expressions may be produced from Luther's writings upon a 
variety of subjects, is quite well known, and no intelligent Pro- 
testant would think of disputing this. That statements of this sort 
are to be found in his treatise " De Servo Arbitrio," in reference 
to the decrees and providence of God, has always been abundantly 
notorious. That some of the statements quoted by Bossuet and 
Sir William do, even as they stand in the original, express Cal- 
vinistic doctrines in an unnecessarily and unwarrantably harsh and 
offensive form, we do not hesitate to admit. Indeed, it is a very 
remarkable fact, that not only the rash and impetuous Luther, 
but also the cautious and timid Melancthon, did, in their earlier 



84 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

works, make more unwarrantable and startling statements about 
the decrees and the agency of God, in their bearing upon men's 
actions, than Calvin ever uttered. When the Lutherans, in the 
next generation, abandoned the Calvinism of their master, they 
were very much at a loss what to make of his treatise " De Servo 
Arbitrio," which, in its natural and obvious meaning, seemed to 
be the production of one who, as was said of Beza, was Calvino 
Calvinior. The most devoted admirers of the Megalander, as they 
usually called him, admitted, of course, that there are some rash 
and exaggerated statements in the work. But that is very little 
to their purpose ; for Calvinists, too, admit the truth of this, 
and contend that, even abstracting everything that might rank 
under this head, the treatise plainly and explicitly asserts the 
f imdamental principles of the Calvinistic system of theology. In 
the year 1664, Sebastian Schmidt, an eminent Lutheran divine, 
and professor of theology at Strasburg, published an edition of 
Luther "De Servo Arbitrio," copiously provided with annotations, 
"quibus," as is set forth in the title-page, "B. Vir ab accusatione, 
quasi absolutum Calvinianorum, vel durius, aliquod Dei decretum 
in libro ipso statuerit, prsecipue vindicatur." The annotations, of 
course, are utterly unsuccessful in effecting the object to which 
they are directed, viz. proving that Luther did not, in this work, 
teach Calvinistic. doctrines. No amount of straining or perversion 
is adequate to effect that. Schmidt's annotations resemble very 
much a Socinian commentary upon the beginning of John's 
Gospel ; and it is rather a curious coincidence, that those scraps 
which Sir William has paraded are duly provided by Schmidt with 
annotations, intended to show, not that they present Calvinism in 
a harsh and offensive form, but that they do not go so far as to 
teach Calvinism at all. 

The compelling Sir William to confess publicly, that, in giving 
a view of Luther's opinions on speculative theology, he had got 
his whole materials at second-hand, was an offence not to be 
forgiven ; and accordingly he brings out, in connection with this 
topic, an assault, or rather a series of assaults, upon the Arch- 
deacon, evidently intended to be murderous. This great philoso- 
pher, when he engages in theological controversy, exhibits odium 
plusquam theologicum. Our readers, we are sure, will not wonder 
at any little severity we have exhibited in dealing with him, when 
they read the following choice specimens of invective, culled from 



Essay IT.] LUTHER. 85 

'a few pages of the notes to the " Discussions."* " Mr Hare's obser- 
vations under this head of speculative theology exhibit significant 
specimens of inconsistency, bad faith, and exquisite error. I shall 
adduce instances of each. But his baseless abuse — that I shall 
overpass." " He is only a one-sided advocate, an advocate from 
personal predilection and antipathies ; and even as such, his argu- 
ments are weak as they are wordy." " Lord Bacon says of some 

one, ' has only two small wants ; he wants knowledge and he 

wants love.' But with the Archdeacon, we cannot well restrict his 
wants to two ; for he lacks logic besides learning and love ; and a 
fourth — withal a worse defect — is to be added, but a defect which 
it is always painful to be forced to specify." " Mr Hare is not the 
champion for Luther ; and if he be effectually counselled, the 
farrago will not again see the light " (this refers to Mr Hare's in- 
timated purpose to republish Note W, — a purpose accomplished in 
the volume now lying before us), " for it is simply a verbose con- 
glomeration of what I shall refrain from characterizing; the author 
making more mistakes or misrepresentations than the note — how- 
ever confessedly prolix and garrulous — exhibits paragraphs. But 
the Archdeacon of Lewes neither learns nor listens. He is not con- 
tent to enjoy his ecclesiastical good fortune in humility and silent 
thankfulness. He will stand forward ; he will challenge admira- 
tion ; he will display his learning ; he will play the polemic ; and 
thus exposes to scorn not merely himself," but also, as Sir William 
goes on to assert, with some detail, the church of which he was a 
dignitary. Now what is the cause, and what the ground of this 
violent outbreak, of this alarming exhibition of a philosopher in a 
fury? The cause of it is simply this, that Mr Hare has laid 
before the public conclusive proof that much, we do not say all, of 
what Sir William has here alleged against his antagonist, is true 
of himself. And the ground of it is nothing more than this, 
that Mr Hare's work, when carefully scrutinized, exhibits a few 
instances of the oversights, errors^ and partialities, which may 
be pointed out, more or less, in nineteen-twentieths of the most 
respectable controversial works that ever were produced, and in 
which Sir William's polemic specially superabounds. No man 
with a sound head and a sound heart can read Sir William's 
onslaught on Mr Hare, of which we have given some specimens, 



2d Edit. pp. 508, 524. 



86 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

without seeing that the charges are grossly exaggerated, and have 
really no solid foundation to rest on. We would not go so far as 
to allege that all that Sir William charges upon Mr Hare is true 
of himself ; but we have no hesitation in saying, that any one who 
might choose to allege this, could, without difficulty, produce a 
much more plausible piece of pleading in support of his allegation 
than Sir William has done. This is so manifestly the true state 
of the case, that we do not think it necessary to go into detail to 
defend Mr Hare against an assault which was evidently intended 
to destroy him, but which, from its very recklessness, has proved 
perfectly powerless. 

It was very natural that Sir William should take under his pro- 
tection Bossuet, to whom, in common with "persons of ordinary 
information," he had been indebted for his specimen of Luther's 
speculative theology ; and, accordingly, he says of him, " In this 
note I have spoken of Bossuet, signifying my reliance upon the 
accuracy of his quotations ; and I am as fully convinced of his 
learning and veracity as of his genius."* As Mr Hare had ad- 
duced satisfactory evidence of Bossuet's unscrupulous unfairness, 
Sir William could scarcely do less than guarantee his veracity : 
and he could do this the more easily, as, in all probability, he 
never had carefully investigated the subject. But the truth is, 
that Bossuet's character for veracity was conclusively settled, in 
the estimation of all intelligent and competent judges, before the 
publication of his " History of the Variations of the Protestant 
Churches," by the tremendous exposures made of him by Dr Wake, 
afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, in his " Exposition of the 
Doctrine of the Church of England," and his two Defences of it. 
We have no doubt that in these works, which have been repub- 
lished in Bishop Gibson's " Preservative against Popery," Wake 
has conclusively convicted Bossuet of deliberate lying, in repeated 
instances; and these not bearing merely on the primary subject of 
controversy between them, viz, the original publication of Bos- 
suet's " Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church," but 
also on several other topics unconnected with it. And in regard 
to the " History of the Variations," though it is characterized by 
extraordinary skill and dexterity, and is indeed in all respects one 
of the most plausible and effective pieces of special pleading ever 

* P. 506. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 87 

produced, and though it generally avoids gross and palpable false- 
hoods, yet it too has, we think, been proved to be utterly destitute 
of fairness and candour. We think it scarcely possible for any 
man to read with care and discrimination, Basnage's " Histoire de 
la Religion des EMises Reformees,"* without bein^ satisfied of the 
truth of this statement. ■ Papists still boast of his " History of the 
Variations " as unanswerable. We believe that it has been most 
thoroughly answered by Basnage, in so far as it is argumenta- 
tive, that everything like argument in it has been completely 
demolished, and that its author has been sadly exposed; while 
we cannot but admit, that even when everything needful to 
satisfy the understanding has been provided, the admirable skill 
and adroitness of the advocate of error has not only made the 
best of a bad cause, but may probably have left some painful 
doubts and uncertainties upon the minds of a considerable class 
of readers. 

The argument of Bossuet's work lies within a very narrow 
compass. It is this. Variations in doctrine afford an evidence of 
error ; Protestants have from the first been constantly varying in 
the doctrines they professed to hold : and, therefore, their views 
are erroneous. In opposition to this, it has been proved — 1st, 
That the maxim about variations proving errors is not true, or is 
only partially true, in the sense in which alone it can serve Bos- 
suet's purpose in argument ; 2d, That some of the variations 
which he ascribes to Protestants are produced, and that many 
more are greatly swelled in importance Lnd magnitude, by his 
own misrepresentations ; and 3d, That the argument, in so far as 
it has any weight, may be retorted with far greater force upon the 
Church of Rome. These positions have been proved by Basnage 
in the most satisfactory and conclusive manner ; so that, so far as 
argument is concerned, the book has been thoroughly demolished. 
But Bossuet's great art throughout the whole work is, that he has 
contrived to bring in, in the most skilful and dexterous, way, a 
great deal that is fitted to damage the characters of the Refor- 
mers, and thus to leave an uncomfortable impression upon men's 
minds, even when his argument, properly so called, is seen to be 
wholly untenable. Bossuet's want of integrity, so far as this work 
is concerned, is exhibited chiefly in producing and magnifying 



* Last Edit. 2 vols. 4to, 1725. 



88 LUTHEE. [Essay II. 

variations, by misrepresenting the views of the Reformers and 
other Protestants ; and we think it scarcely possible for any one 
to read Basnage carefully, without being convinced, that it was 
only policy that restrained him from practising the grosser and 
more palpable frauds in which most Popish controversialists" in- 
dulge, and that with admirable skill he has systematically carried 
his misrepresentations just as far as he thought, upon the whole, 
to be safe or expedient. 

We have really no pleasure in making such statements about 
Bossuet, who, in spite of his want of integrity in matters in which 
the interests of his church were concerned, was not only possessed of 
splendid mental endowments, but even of something like a certain 
elevation and nobility of general character. Integrity in matters 
in which the interests and reputation of the church are concerned, 
it is hopless to expect of almost any Popish controversialist. Ar- 
nauld and Nicole, the famous Jansenists, were the two other great 
contemporary champions of Popery ; and they have certainly fur- 
nished far better evidence that they were really men of religious 
and moral principle than can be produced in favour of Bossuet. 
And yet we have great doubts whether they held fast their in- 
tegrity. We greatly admire all these men, though we do not put 
them in the same category ; and while we would not pervert or 
explain away any matters of fact as to what they said or did, we 
feel strongly disposed to palliate their aberrations, by laying a por- 
tion of the responsibility upon the demoralizing and conscience- 
searing system to the influence of which they were subjected. 
It always deepens our indignation against the Man of Sin, the 
Mystery of Iniquity, when our attention is called to anything 
which reminds us that that system reduced a man so noble in 
many respects as Bossuet was, to such artifices, and imperilled, at 
least, the integrity of such men as Arnauld and Nicole. We dis- 
miss this subject with the following admirable remarks of Mr 
Hare on the famous " History of the Variations," which we be- 
lieve to be just and sound : — 

" Indeed, if anything were surprising among the numberless Truga'Xoyoc, of 
literature, one should marvel at the inordinate reputation which the ' Histoire 
des Variations ' has acquired, not merely with the members of a church glad 
to make the most of any prop for a rotten cause, but among Protestants of 
learning and discernment. One main source of its celebrity may lie in that 
spirit of detraction which exercises such a baneful power in all classes of man- 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 89 

kind, ever since Cain slew his brother on account of his righteousness ; in the 
eagerness with which all listen to evil-speaking and slander, finding little 
diminution of their pleasure though it be strongly seasoned with lying ; in 
that want of sympathy with heroic and enthusiastic spirits which is so preva- 
lent among men of the world, and the great body of men of letters, and their 
consequent satisfaction at seeing what towers beyond their ken cast down to 
the ground. Able as the ' Histoire des Variations' doubtless is, if regarded 
as the statement and pleading of an unprincipled and unscrupulous advocate, 
it is anything but a great work. For no work can be great unless it be 
written with a paramount love of truth. This is the moral element of all 
genius, and without it the finest talents are worth little more than a con- 
juror's sleight-of-hand. Bossuet, in this book, never seems even to have set 
himself the problem of speaking the truth, as a thing to be desired and aimed 
at. He pretends to seat himself in the chair of judgment, but without a 
thought of doing justice to the persons he summons before him. He does not 
examine to ascertain whether they are guilty or not. His mind is made up 
beforehand that they are guilty ; and his only care is to scrape together what- 
ever may seem to prove this, that he may have a specious plea for condemning 
them. Never once, I believe, from the first page to the last, did he try 
heartily to make out what the real fact was. He is determined to say all 
possible evil of the Reformers ; to show that they went wrong at every step, 
in every deed, in every word, in every thought ; to prove that they are all 
darkness, with scarcely a gleam of light. Hence his representation of Luther 
is no more like him than an image made up of the black lines in a spectrum 
would be like the sun. Bossuet picks out all the bad he can find, and leaves 
out all the good. But as even this procedure would poorly serve his purpose, 
the main part of his picture consists of sentences torn from their context ; 
which, by some forcible wrench, some process of garbling, by being deprived 
of certain limiting or counterbalancing clauses, by being made positive 
instead of hypothetical, or through some of the other tricks of which we 
have seen such sad instances in these pages, are rendered very offensive. 
With regard to the Landgrave's marriage, his treatment of Luther is more 
like the ferocity of a tiger, tearing his prey limb from limb, and gloating 
over it before he devours it, than the spirit which becomes a Christian 
bishop."* 

This leads us to advert to Sir William's charges against Luther 
under the head of practical theology. We have already mentioned 
that the only materials originally produced under this head were 
extracts from the document in which Luther, Melancthon, and 
some other divines of that period, gave their permission or consent 
to the Landgrave of Hesse marrying a second wife while his first 
wife continued to live with him. This story is, of course, a great 



Pp. 272-274. 



90 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

favourite with Popish controversialists. It is an especial favourite 
with Sir William. He produced it in the Edinburgh Review in 
1834 ; and again, a second time, nine years later, in his pamphlet 
in favour of the intrusion of ministers, though he now changed 
materially the nature of the accusation which, in connection with 
this matter, he adduced against the Reformers. In the notes to 
the original article, as republished in the " Discussions" in 1852, 
he has not brought forward much additional matter, so far as 
Luther and Melancthon are concerned ; the chief fruits of his 
continued researches into this apparently congenial subject being, 
that he is at last able to boast* — whether truly or not we do not 
know — that he is now acquainted, he believes, with all the pub- 
lications relative to this story, and that he has collected a con- 
siderable quantity of additional matter (certainly unknown before 
to " persons of ordinary information"), in order to blacken the 
character of Melander and Lenin g, two Protestant ministers who 
signed the document about the marriage along with Luther and 
Melancthon, and who might, without any detriment to the public, 
have been left in the obscurity from which Sir William's extra- 
ordinary information has dragged them. 

It is unpleasant to have to discuss such a subject as this, and 
it is not easy to see what benefit the public can derive from the 
discussion of it ; but if Sir William Hamilton persists in dwelling 
upon it, and in pressing it upon public attention, and if he is 
resolved to employ it for unjustly damaging the character of the 
Reformers, he thereby imposes upon others a necessity of dealing 
with it, instead of leaving it wholly in his hands, and allowing 
him to use it for purposes which many believe to be unjust and 
injurious. Sir William may probably allege that he is merely 
bringing out what is true, and that all truth ought to be proclaimed 
and made known. We do not admit that all that he has put 
forth upon this subject is true ; and if it were we would still take 
the liberty of regarding it as not creditable to any man to manifest 
a special anxiety to press such truths upon public attention without 
any apparent call to do so, and to labour to bring them out in 
their most offensive and aggravated form. Circumstances may 
occur in which anything that is really true may be brought out 
and proclaimed without impropriety by parties concerned in, or 

* P. 515. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 91 

called to meddle with it ; but it is not the less true that we are 
entitled to judge of men by the selection they make of the topics 
which they seem most anxious to press upon our notice. Sir 
William, no doubt, will claim to himself the credit of having been 
influenced in all he has done in this matter by pure love of truth ; 
but we think we can venture to assure him, that his character 
would have stood much higher this day in the estimation of 
honourable men, if he had never meddled with the second mar- 
riage of the Landgrave of Hesse, and had left it to be handled by 
Romanists and Romanizers. We do not mean to go into details 
upon this painful subject. We can merely suggest a few hints, 
as to what ought to be thought of this affair, and of Sir William's 
mode of dealing with it. 

Luther's conduct in this matter has not been approved of by 
Protestants, but, on the contrary, has been given up as indefen- 
sible. They have differed somewhat in the severity of their cen- 
sures, and in the grounds on which they rest their condemnation 
of his conduct, but they have not undertaken to vindicate it. 
Basnage, in his reply to Bousset's " History of the Variations," 
at once admits that Luther's Conduct was wrong; and so does 
Seckendorff, in his great work, " De Lutheranismo." This un- 
doubtedly is the right and honest course to pursue in the matter ; 
though it is no doubt quite fair to see that the case is fully and 
correctly stated, and not exaggerated or perverted. Mr Hare has 
successfully exposed several unfair and malicious misrepresenta- 
tions of Bossuet in his commentaries upon this subject ; and has 
also pointed out the unfairness of the selection of the passages by 
Sir William from the principal document connected with this 
affair. Upon this last point he says : — 

"When we compare tbem with the whole body from which they are torn, 
they who admire ingenuity, in whatsoever cause it may be displayed, will be 
struck with the dexterity shown in garbling the opinion of the divines, so as 
to render it as offensive as possible. The main part of it, wherein they per- 
form their duty of spiritual advisers honestly and faithfully, telling the Land- 
grave of the evils likely to arise from his conduct, and of the divine wrath 
which he was provoking by his sinful life, is wholly left out ; so that it seems 
as if they had had no thought of their pastoral responsibility, but readily 
consented to do just what the Landgrave wished, and were solely deterred 
by fear of the shame it might bring on themselves and on their cause. 1 '* 



* P. 241. 



92 LUTHER. [Essay 1L 

The proper antidote to this unfairness of Sir William's, is to 
give the document in full. This Mr Hare has done, and to his 
pages we must refer for it.* Mr Hare has brought out fully the 
leading features of this transaction, and has suggested almost 
everything that could be said in palliation of the conduct of the 
Reformers in this matter. He goes rather farther than we are 
prepared to do in palliation of what they did. We cannot but 
admit that his love for Luther has somewhat perverted his judg- 
ment, — has made him judge rather too favourably. At the same 
time he has proved conclusively, that there were some material 
palliations of their conduct ; and has shown that it involves gross 
ignorance or injustice to judge of the bare facts of the case by 
the notions and feelings of our own age and country, without 
taking into account the views that prevailed on such subjects in 
the sixteenth century, and the way in which they were then often 
discussed. This is of itself sufficient to establish the injustice and 
unfairness of the course which Sir William has pursued in the 
matter. But let us briefly advert to his more formal charges, 
based upon this transaction. Originally he accused them of the 
" skulking compromise of all professed principle ;" meaning, of 
course, that in giving their consent to the Landgrave's bigamy, 
they sanctioned what they knew to be sinful, under the influence 
of selfish and secular motives, connected with the general interests 
of the Reformed cause, to which the good-will and the support of 
the Landgrave were very important. This is the view usually 
given of the transaction by Popish controversialists. But Sir 
William, in his pamphlet in favour of intrusion, withdraws this 
charge, and substitutes another in its room ; alleging that they 
approved of polygamy as lawful and warrantable, and, of course, 
acted in the matter in accordance with their own convictions, — 
their anxiety for the concealment of the marriage arising, on this 
second theory, not from the belief that it was sinful, but merely 
from prudential considerations to avoid scandaL He adheres to 
this latter view in his " Discussions." According to the former 
view of the matter, the conduct of the Reformers in consenting 
to the Landgrave's second marriage was a sin, being produced by 
the operation of sinful motives, and tending directly to bring about 
the commission of sin. According to the latter view, it was an 



Pp. 235-241. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 93 

error of opinion, or what, from its heinous and offensive character, 
might be called a heresy. But though the charge, as originally 
put, involved a sin, and in its second form was merely an error, 
most people in modern times will probably regard it as being quite 
as damaging to the character of Luther and Melancthon to have 
inculcated the lawfulness of polygamy, as to have been tempted, 
upon a particular occasion, to have given consent to the doing of 
what was sinful. 

Mr Hare concurs in the general idea involved in Sir William's 
second deliverance upon the subject, viz. that the conduct of 
the Reformers is to be regarded rather as an error than as a 
sin, though he reaches that conclusion by a different course, and 
maintains the incorrectness of several of Sir William's posi- 
tions, especially of his leading one, which ascribes to Luther and 
Melancthon a belief in the lawfulness of polygamy under the 
Christian dispensation. The leading features in his view of the 
case are exhibited in the following quotations : — 

"When we examine the whole opinion connectedly, we are compelled to 
reject the excuse which Sir W. Hamilton so kindly proposes, in order to rescue 
Luther from the fangs of the Edinburgh Reviewer. For, from first to last, 
it is plain that the licence, which the divines declare themselves unable to 
condemn, is meant by them to be regarded as a dispensation, and not as 
authorizing or sanctioning polygamy ; and this is the main reason why they 
are so earnest in requiring that the second marriage, if entered upon, should 
be kept secret, lest it should be looked upon as the introduction of a general 
practice. Polygamy, as a general practice, they altogether condemn ; because 
they conceive that our Lord's words in the passage referred to re-establish the 
primary, paradisiacal institution of monogamy. At the same time, while they 
see that polygamy, though contrary to the original institution, is sanctioned 
in the Old Testament, both by the practice of the patriarchs and by the ex- 
press recognition of it in the book of Deuteronomy, they do not find any 
passage in the New Testament directly and absolutely forbidding it. Here 
we should bear in mind what their rule, especially Luther's, was. When the 
word of God seemed to him clear and express, then everything else was to 
bow to it : heaven and earth might pass away, but no tittle of what God had 
said. On the other hand, where no express Scripture could be produced, he 
held that all human laws and ordinances, and everything enjoined by man's 
understanding on considerations of expediency, however wide that expediency 
might be, is so far flexible and variable, that it may be made to bend to im- 
perious circumstances in particular cases. 

" Thus the document itself forces us to decline Sir W. Hamilton's plea, 
that Luther was merely giving his sanction in a single instance to that 



94 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

which he desired at heart to establish generally, the patriarchal practice of 
polygamy."* 

' Then follows a careful investigation of Luther's general views 
on the subject of polygamy, as indicated in his writings, and of 
his presumed concurrence in the suggestion which Melancthon 
made to Henry VIII. of England, that it would be less objection- 
able to take a second wife than to divorce his first ; after which 
he states thus the ground on which he thinks Luther acted in 
sanctioning the Landgrave's second marriage : — 

" But though we must reject the plea that the advice given to the Land- 
grave is an instance of the predilection which the Reformers, on principle, 
entertained for polygamy, the evidence adduced abundantly proves, that, in 
sanctioning a dispensation in what appeared to them a case of pressing need, 
they were not acting inconsistently, but in thorough consistency with the 
principles which they had avowed for years before. To us, indeed, the notion 
of such a dispensation will still be very offensive ; but we must beware, as I 
have already remarked, of transferring the moral views and feelings of our 
age to Luther's. The canon law admitted the necessity of dispensations, 
which, in matrimonial cases, were especially numerous. One of the main ob- 
jects of the scholastic casuistry was to determine under what limitations they 
are admissible, as may be seen in our own authors on this branch of practical 
theology, such as Taylor ; and the great importance of casuistry is beginning 
to be recognised anew by recent writers on ethics. The ignorant prater may 
cry, that Luther ought to have thrown all such things overboard, along with 
the other rubbish of Romanism. But it was never Luther's wont to throw 
things overboard in a lump. His calling, he felt, was to preach Christ cruci- 
fied for the sins of mankind, — Christ, of whose righteousness we become par- 
takers by faith. Whatever in the institutions and practices of the church was 
compatible with the exercise of this ministry, he did not assail unless it was 
flagrantly immoral. The sale of dispensations, the multiplication of cases for 
dispensations, in order to gain money by the sale of them, he regarded as 
criminal ; and the abolition of such dispensations, where they have been 
abolished, the reprobation they lie under, are owing, in no small measure, to 
him. But the idea of law which manifested itself to him, convinced him that 
positive laws can only partially express the requirements of the supreme law 
of love, for the sake of which they must at times bend ; and when he con- 
sulted his one infallible authority, he found that his heavenly Master's chief 
outward conflict during His earthly ministry, was to assert the supremacy of 
the law of love, which the Pharisees were continually infringing, while they 
stickled pertinaciously for the slightest positive enactment." f 



Pp. 242-3. f Pp. 256, 257. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 95 

lie sums up the matter in this way : — 

" Such, then, is the amount of Luther's sin, or rather error — for sin I dare 
not call it — in this affair, in which the voice of the world, ever ready to believe 
evil of great and good men, has so severely condemned him, without investi- 
gation of the facts ; although the motives imputed to him are wholly repug- 
nant to those which governed his conduct through life. He did not compro- 
mise any professed principle, as the reviewer accuses him of doing : he did not 
inculcate polygamy, as the pamphleteer charges him with doing. But inas- 
much as he could not discover any direct, absolute prohibition of polygamy in 
the New Testament, while it was practised by the patriarchs and recognised by 
the law, he did not deem himself warranted in condemning it absolutely, when 
there appeared, in special cases, to be a strong necessity, either with a view to 
some great national object, or for the relief of a troubled conscience. Here 
it behoves us to bear in mind, on the one hand, what importance Luther 
attached, as all his writings witness, to this high ministerial office of relieving 
troubled consciences ; and it may mitigate our condemnation of his error, — 
which, after all, was an error on the right side, its purpose being to substitute 
a hallowed union for unhallowed licence, — if we remember that Gerson had 
said openly, a century before, expressing the common opinion of his age, that 
it was better for a priest to be guilty of fornication than to marry. Such was 
the moral degradation of the church under the Egyptian bondage of ordi- 
nances, that even so wise and good a man could deem it expedient to sacrifice 
the sacred principles of right and purity, the sense of duty, and the peace of 
the soul, for the sake of upholding the arbitrary enactment of a tyrannical 
hierarchy. Indeed, the clamour which has been raised against Luther for this 
one act by the Romish polemics, is perhaps, among all cases of the beam crying 
out agaiust the mote, the grossest and the most hypocritical. 

" Nor should we forget what difficulties have in all ages compassed the 
settlement of special matrimonial cases. They may perhaps be less now in 
England than in other countries, notwithstanding the grievous scandals which 
attend them even here ; and there is always a prejudice inclining men to sup- 
pose that their own condition is the normal one for the whole human race : 
but if we compare the laws of marriage which prevail in the various branches 
of Christendom, and know anything of their moral effects as manifested in 
family life, we shall perceive how hard it is to lay down any one inviolable rule. 
What the obscurity and uncertainty of the law was in Luther's time, we may 
estimate from the conflicting answers which were returned to the questions 
mooted with reference to Henry YIII.'s divorce. On the other hand, we 
should try to realize what the Bible was to Luther, — the source of all wisdom, 
the treasure-house of all truth, the primordial code of all law, the store-room 
from which, with the help of the Spirit, he was to bring forth every needful 
weapon to fight against and to overcome the world and the devil, — how, if 
the Bible had been put in the one scale, and all the books of all the great 
thinkers of the heathen and Christian world had been piled up in the other, 
they would not have availed, in his judgment, to sway the balance so much as 



96 LUTHER. ' [Essay II. 

a hair's-breadth. It was not much the practice of his age — least of all was it 
Luther's — to estimate the lawfulness and propriety of an act by reference to 
its general consequences. He did, indeed, bethink himself of the evil that 
would ensue, if the dispensation were regarded as a precedent, and therefore 
did he insist on its being kept secret : but he did not duly consider how im- 
possible it was that such a step, taken by a man of so impetuous a character, 
should be kept secret ; nor how terrible the evils would be if every pastor were 
to deem himself authorized to give similar counsel ; nor how perilous it is to 
take the covering of secrecy for any acts, except such as are sanctioned by the 
laws of God and man, while the moral feeling of society throws a veil over 
them."* 

Since it is necessary to discuss such painful and delicate topics, 
in consequence of Sir William's offensive conduct in forcing them 
upon public attention, we prefer employing the words of another 
to our own. We are very thankful to Mr Hare for vindicating 
Luther so well, and we shrink from enlarging upon the subject. 
But justice demands one or two observations. 

Sir William alleges that Luther maintained the lawfulness, or, 
as he says, " the religions legality," of polygamy, even under the 
Christian dispensation ; and he has been threatening the world for 
nearly thirteen years with the publication of what he calls " an 
articulate manifestation," " a chronological series of testimonies," 
in support of this charge. There is nothing new, certainly, in this 
allegation. It was brought forward by Bellarmine,f who has been 
followed in this by the generality of Popish controversialists. It 
has also been adduced by the defenders of polygamy, that they 
might have some respectable countenance to their abominations, 
as may be seen in the famous, or rather infamous, " Polygamia 
Triumphatrix" of Lyser. We do not suppose that Sir William's 
u articulate manifestation," if it ever see the light, will contain 
anything but what has been known and discussed before. There 
is, indeed, some difficulty in ascertaining precisely and certainly 
what Luther's views were on some points connected with polygamy. 
There is some confusion and inconsistency in his statements. At 
one time he certainly drew somewhat wide and incautious inferences 
from the practice of the patriarchs in this respect, extending to 
polygamy what our Saviour said of divorce, that, under the old 
economy, God permitted it because of the hardness of men's hearts. 
But he seems at length to have become quite settled in the con- 

* Pp. 269-271. f De Matrimonii Sacramento, c. x. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 97 

viction, that under the Christian dispensation polygamy was for- 
bidden by the authority of our Saviour ; and if so, Sir William's 
allegation that " polygamy was never abandoned by Luther as a 
religious speculation " is unfounded. 

But it must be noticed and remembered that Sir William has 
gone farther than this, and asserted* that Luther and Melancthon 
wished polygamy to be sanctioned by the civil authorities, and did 
something, though unsuccessfully, directed to bring about this 
result. All this is fairly implied in the language he has employed; 
and this involves a new charge, one which, so far as we know and 
remember, has not before been advanced against them either by 
Papists or polygamists. This point specially needs to be proved ; 
and when Sir William produces his "articulate manifestation," 
this special discovery of his own must be duly commended and 
established, by an exhibition of the proof which has eluded the 
researches of all previous depredators of the Reformers. 

We are not quite satisfied, as we have hinted, with some of the 
grounds on which Mr Hare has based his vindication of Luther in 
this matter. We do not see that anything short of Sir William's 
position, that Luther believed in "the religious legality" of 
polygamy, is altogether adequate to take his conduct out of the 
category of a sin, and to invest it with the character of an error. 
We believe that the transaction involved both an error in judgment 
and a sin in conduct, the error, indeed, somewhat palliating the 
sin. Luther and Melancthon held, as Mr Hare has shown, that 
this was a matter on which dispensations might sometimes be 
granted for special reasons, on extraordinary emergencies. And 
this belief may be said, in a sense, to have palliated their condnct, 
by bringing the subject of a dispensation before them as what 
might be lawfully entertained. But even if this opinion had been 
true, instead of being erroneous, the question would still remain, 
whether or not this was a case for a dispensation to marry a second 
wife ; and, at this point, we fear it must be admitted that the 
element of direct and palpable sinfulness comes in. Even suppos- 
ing that dispensations may be lawful in some cases of this sort, 
there seems to be no fair ground for holding that the Landgrave's 
was a case warranting a dispensation ; and what is specially per- 
tinent to the point in hand, there is no sufficient ground to believe 



* See quotation, pp. 75, 76. 
VOL. I. 



98 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

that Luther and Melancthon really believed it to be a case warrant- 
ing a dispensation. We cannot but conclude, from a deliberate 
survey of the whole case, that Luther and Melancthon were 
substantially satisfied that the Landgrave, in marrying a second 
wife, was guilty of sin ; and that, therefore, in giving their consent 
to his doing this, they were themselves sinning. It was a solitary 
offence, with much to palliate it on a variety of grounds, but still 
it was a sin, committed under the influence of temptation ; and as 
such it ought to be condemned. 

It is an interesting and instructing circumstance, that one 
spot, in some respects similar, stains the character of John Knox ; 
and we could not possibly find words that would, in our judgment, 
describe Luther's conduct in this matter more correctly than those 
in which Dr M'Crie has described a transaction in the life of our 
own Reformer : — 

" In one solitary instance, the anxiety which he felt for the preservation 
of the great cause in which he was so deeply interested, betrayed him into an 
advice, which was not more inconsistent with the laws of strict morality, than 
it was contrary to the stern uprightness and undisguised sincerity which 
characterized the rest of his conduct."* 

The third head of Sir William's original attack upon Luther 
was Biblical Criticism ; and under this head he collected, chiefly 
from the " Table Talk" some rash and offensive statements ascribed 
to Luther, in which he is represented as speaking disparagingly of 
some of the books of Scripture. Mr Hare has here again con- 
victed Sir William of several blunders, and one of them Sir 
William has been constrained to confess in the notes to his 
" Discussions." f But this topic is not worth dwelling upon. To 
collect and parade an " anthology " of rash and exaggerated state- 
ments from Luther, and especially to take materials for doing this 
from the " Table Talk," is about as unfair an occupation as can 
well be conceived ; and if Sir William had confined himself to 
this, we would not have thought it worth while to have given him 
any disturbance, beyond denouncing his conduct in the terms it 
deserved. 

But it must not be forgotten that there is one other very gross 
and heinous charge which Sir William has brought against Luther, 
a charge never, so far as we know, adduced before, and of which, 

* P. 360. f P- 517, 6th Ed. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 99 

though it was fabricated by himself, and published to the world 
nearly thirteen years ago, he has not yet attempted to produce 
any evidence. It is stated and disposed of by Mr Hare in the 
following brief extract : — 

"The other charges, that Luther 'publicly preached incontinence, adul- 
tery, incest even, as not only allowable, but, if practised under the prudential 
regulations which he himself lays down, unobjectionable and even praise- 
worthy,' cannot be refuted in the same summary manner. I might cite a 
number of passages against incontinence from his writings : I might show 
that he often expressed a wish that adultery were punished capitally. But I 
will not waste words upon such accusations, proceeding from a witness whose 
testimony has been proved again and again to be utterly worthless. When a 
dear friend, whose faith and righteousness have been approved during a long 
life, under many severe trials, is said to have committed unheard-of enormi- 
ties, without any specification of when, where, how, or what, one is fully 
warranted in replying that the assertions cannot possibly be true. Therefore 
I will merely defy Sir W. Hamilton to bring forward evidence in support of 
these atrocious charges. Should he attempt to do so, and adduce any passages 
beyond those which have been satisfactorily explained by Harless in the 
seventh volume of his Journal, I shall deem myself bound to use my best endea- 
vours to set them on a right footing. At the same time, let me remark, that I 
trust he will not have the assurance to quote certain sayings, which explicitly 
refer solely to cases of impotence, as substantiating his allegations. Should he 
shrink from this test, finding that he cannot stand it, what can a generous, nay, 
what can an honest man do in his place, but come forward with an open recanta- 
tion, and a humble acknowledgment of the wrong he has done to one of the 
noblest pillars of Christianity, one of the greatest benefactors of mankind?"* 

Sir William has certainly brought himself under very peculiar 
obligations, to prove, if he can, his own special charges against 
Luther, viz. that he wished to have polygamy sanctioned by the 
civil authorities, and that he recommended, under certain restric- 
tions, incontinence, adultery, and incest. And these, after all, are 
the most important points involved in this controversy, whether 
as affecting the character of Luther or Sir William Hamilton. If 
Sir William cannot conclusively establish these charges, there are 
no words too strong to characterize his conduct in adducing them. 
And yet we do not suppose that his friends will advise him to 
attempt to establish his accusations. He is sure to fail in the 
attempt. We do not pretend to possess a very thorough ac- 
quaintance with Luther's writings ; but, from what we do know of 



* Pp. 286, 287. 



100 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

his works and of his character, we are very confident that these 
odious charges cannot be established; while we are well aware 
that, if the attempt is made, this will involve the bringing forward 
of a great deal of matter most unsuitable to be made the subject of 
public discussion. Sir William, indeed, has placed himself in such a 
situation that he can neither speak nor be silent without justly in- 
curring discredit and reproach. He has been much better employed 
since 1843 than in defending his extraordinary pamphlet of that 
year. He has since that time rendered most important services to 
the world in the highest departments of philosophical speculation. 
He has yet much to do in developing and promulgating his philo- 
sophical views ; and w T e trust he will be spared to do this. We 
are not in the least afraid of him. We have perfect confidence 
in the goodness of our cause, and in the imprudence of our 
opponent. We have exposed, with all plainness, his attack upon 
the character of the Reformers, undeterred by the warning which 
the very peculiar complexion of his assault upon Archdeacon Hare 
seems fitted and intended to convey ; and we have done so because 
we believed this to be the discharge of an important public duty. 
But we would rather avoid incurring, unnecessarily, the responsi- 
bility of calling him out again on theological and ecclesiastical 
questions ; because we are very certain that this is a field where 
he can gain no credit to himself and confer no real benefit on his 
fellow-men, and where he might exhaust time and strength that 
may be employed more honourably for himself, and more bene- 
ficially for the world. 

We have been, of necessity, so much engrossed with the 
weaknesses and infirmities of Luther, — with the defects of his 
character, — that it would be an act of injustice to him if we were 
to conclude without reminding our readers of his strong claims to 
our esteem and affection as a man, and of the invaluable services 
which he was made the instrument of rendering to the church and 
the world. The first of these points is beautifully touched upon 
by Mr Hare, in the conclusion of his " Vindication : " — 

" To some readers it may seem that I have spoken with exaggerated ad- 
miration of Luther. No man ever lived whose whole heart, and soul, and life, 
have been laid bare as his have been to the eyes of mankind. Open as the 
sky, bold and fearless as the storm, he gave utterance to all his feelings, all 
his thoughts : he knew nothing of reserve : and the impression he produced on 
his hearers and friends was such, that they were anxious to treasure up every 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 101 

word that dropped from his pen or from his lips. No man, therefore, has 
ever been exposed to so severe a trial : perhaps no man was ever placed in such 
difficult circumstances, or assailed by such manifold temptations. And how- 
has he come out of the trial ? Through the power of faith, under the guardian 
care of his heavenly Master, lie was enabled to stand through life ; and still 
he stands, and will continue to stand, firmly rooted in the love of all who 
really know him. A writer quoted by Harless* has well said, 'I have con- 
tinually been more and more edified, elevated, and strengthened by this 
man of steel, this sterling soul, in whom certain features of the Christian 
character are manifested in their fullest perfection. His image, I confess, was 
for some years obscured before my eyes. I fixed them exclusively on the ebul- 
litions of his powerful nature, unsubdued as yet by the Spirit of the Lord. 
But when, on a renewed study of his works, the holy faith and energy of his 
thoroughly German character, the truth of his whole being, his wonderful 
childlikeness and simplicity, revealed themselves to my sight in their glory ; 
then I could not but turn to him with entire, pure love, and exclaim, His weak- 
nesses are only so great, oecause Ms virtues are so great."' 'f 

These are the feelings which every rightly constituted and 
adequately informed mind will cherish towards Luther as a man ; 
and the services which he was enabled to render to the church and 
the world were such as to entitle him to be ever regarded with the 
profoundest admiration and gratitude. His great leading ser- 
vice, in so far as the highest of all interests are concerned, was 
the entire destruction of the doctrine of human merit, and the 
thorough establishment of the great scriptural truth of a purely 
gratuitous justification through faith alone as the means or instru- 
ment of uniting men to Jesus Christ, and of applying to them all 
that He did and suffered in their room ; together with the vigorous 
and unshrinking application of these great principles to the expo- 
sure of all the mass of erroneous doctrines and of unauthorized 
and sinful practices, by which the Church of Rome had been lead- 
ing men, formally or virtually, theoretically or practically, to per- 
vert the gospel of the grace of God, and to build their hopes for 
eternity upon a false foundation. Under this general description 
may be comprehended, more or less directly, most of the theology 
which the writings of Luther contain. This w T as the work which 
God raised him up and qualified him to achieve ; and a more im- 
portant work, one more fraught with glory to God and benefit to 
man, was probably never committed to any one who had not been 
endowed with the gift of supernatural inspiration. Luther's pre- 



* vii. 2. t P P- 293-4. 



102 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

vious training and experience before he appeared publicly as a 
Reformer, were manifestly fitted and intended to lead him to 
understand practically the true way of a sinner's acceptance and 
deliverance from guilt and bondage ; for, after being awakened 
to some sense of divine things, and of his own relation to God, 
he went long about to establish his own righteousness, before he 
was brought into the glorious liberty of God's children. This 
was evidently the best preparation for the work to which he was 
destined. He had tried all other methods of obtaining deliverance 
and peace, with the utmost earnestness, and in circumstances in 
many respects favourable. He had been driven from every refuge 
of lies, and shut up to an absolute submission to the righteousness 
of God, — the righteousness which is of God by faith. He had 
been compelled, and he had been enabled, to fight his way through 
all the formidable obstacles which the current doctrines and 
practices of the Church of Rome interposed to men's rightly dis- 
cerning and appreciating their true condition as helpless sinners, 
and the scriptural method of their deliverance, and was thus 
eminently fitted for opening up to the miserable victims of Romish 
delusion, the danger to which they were exposed, and the only 
sure way in which deliverance and enlargement were to be ob- 
tained. This object he zealously and faithfully prosecuted during 
the remainder of his life, keeping it principally in view in his 
exposition of divine truth, and in his interpretation of the word 
of God. 

The doctrine of justification, notwithstanding the peculiarly 
full, formal, and elaborate exposition which the Apostle Paul was 
guided by the Spirit to make of it, became very soon involved in 
obscurity and error ; and though some, no doubt, in every age — 
apparently decreasing, however, in number, in every succeeding 
century — were practically, and in fact, led by God's grace to 
rest for their own salvation upon the one foundation laid in Zion, 
yet it is, to say the least, somewhat doubtful whether, after the 
age of the men who had held personal intercourse with the apostles 
(from none of whom have we anything like detailed expositions of 
Christian doctrine), any man can be produced who has given, or 
who could have given, a perfectly correct exposition of the whole 
of Paul's doctrine upon this vitally important subject. Confusion 
and error upon this point continued to increase and extend, — even 
Augustine giving the weight of his deservedly high authority to 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 103 

views defective and erroneous regarding it, — until, by the admir- 
able skill with which the doctrines and practices of the Church of 
Rome were adapted to foster and satisfy those notions upon this 
subject to which depraved men are naturally disposed, all scrip- 
tural views of the method of justification had, for many centuries 
before the Reformation, disappeared from the world ; and while 
there was still a vague, unmeaning, and inoperative acknowledg- 
ment of Christ as a Saviour, the great body of His professed 
followers were practically and in reality relying upon their own 
works and merits, and upon the works and merits of other sinful 
creatures like themselves, for the salvation of their souls. 

This was the condition in which Luther found the professing 
church in regard to theology and religion. He was guided, by 
the work of the divine Spirit upon his own understanding and 
heart, through the word, to appreciate aright men's utter helpless- 
ness and inability to do anything to merit or deserve the forgive- 
ness of their sins and the enjoyment of God's favour ; to see that 
salvation and all its blessings are purchased for men by Christ, 
and are freely imparted to them individually by God's grace 
through the instrumentality of faith ; and to feel that the practical 
reception of these doctrines is the only sure provision for produc- 
ing holiness of heart, and peace and joy in believing. And his life 
was mainly devoted to the exposition of these fundamental prin- 
ciples of Christian truth, and the application and enforcement of 
them in opposition to all the corruptions and abuses, theoretical 
and practical, of the Church of Rome. He was enabled to bring 
out his views on these subjects so clearly and convincingly, and to 
establish them so firmly upon the basis of scriptural authority, that 
in substance they were adopted by all the other Reformers, em- 
bodied in the confessions of all the Reformed churches, including 
the Church of England, and that they were always held with 
peculiar clearness and steadiness in the Lutheran Church, until 
the rationalism of last century swept away all regard to the autho- 
rity of God's word, and all right conceptions of men's actual 
relation to God and the gospel method of salvation. There is little 
else in Luther's theological works than what may be said to be 
involved, more or less directly, in the exposition and application of 
these great truths ; but there is all this set forth with much clear- 
ness and vigour, and applied with much energy and success. He 
scarcely seems ever to have proposed it to himself as an object, to 



104 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

open up the whole system of scriptural truth in its connection and 
details, and to unfold it in its various aspects. Human merit and 
ability on the one hand, and on the other full and purely gratui- 
tous justification, as indispensably necessary for men, and actually 
provided and offered by God through Christ, are at once the 
points from which he ever starts, and the centres around which he 
ever moves : and by thoroughly establishing the one upon the 
ruins of the other, he has thrown a flood of light upon the most 
fundamental articles of Christian truth, and upon the interpretation 
of the most important portions of the word of God. 

Luther* can scarcely be said to have investigated with much 
care, or to have discussed with much success, any department of 
divine truth, which was not more or less directly connected with 
these fundamental points ; but then, both from the nature of the 
case and the forms which the corruption of the divine method of 
justification had assumed in the Church of Rome, the exposition 
and application of these topics led him to traverse a much wider 
field of divine truth than might at first sight be supposed. Still, 
as he certainly did not possess the comprehensive far-reaching 
intellect of Calvin, he views most topics only in their bearings on 
a sinner's acceptance, without always taking in all the different 
aspects in which they are presented to us in Scripture. It may 
be worth while to illustrate this by an example. 

Luther, especially during the earlier part of his career (and the 
same holds true, in some measure, of his immediate followers), in 
treating of the worship of God, and the load of ceremonies with 
which the Church of Rome had encumbered and disfigured it, 
manifests an inadequate sense of the sinfulness of idolatry, viewed 
simply as such, or as a direct offence against God, and scarcely 
any sense of the sinfulness of man's introducing rites and cere- 
monies into the worship of God, simply upon the ground that God 
had not authorized or required them. He seems to think that 
the great evil of the Romish rites ancl ceremonies — even those 
which, upon scriptural principles, should be chiefly and primarily 
denounced as idolatrous, and therefore directly and immediately 
involving a sin against God, independently of all other considera- 
tions and consequences — lay in the notion of merit that teas conjoined 



* The remainder of this Essay is I Lectures on Church History, and did 
taken from Dr Cunningham's MS. | not appear in the Review. — Eds. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 105 

ivith them, — in the idea which the church inculcated, that through 
these rites and ceremonies men were either meriting God's favour, 
or at least securing for themselves an interest in the merits of 
other creatures. No doubt this view might be justly regarded as 
being the crowning iniquity of the Popish system, that which most 
directly and immediately brought it to bear injuriously upon the 
salvation of men. But Luther seems to have seen little evil in 
these rites and ceremonies, except for the opinion of their meri- 
toriousness, inculcated along with their observance ; and would 
probably have been little disposed to object to them had they not 
been formally and explicitly represented by the church in this 
light, which, of course, brought them into collision with the Scrip- 
ture doctrine of justification. But this view, though true, so far as 
it went, and very important, did not go to the root of the matter ; 
and it was assigned to Zwingle, and still more fully to Calvin, 
to bring out the guilt of idolatry, as directly and immediately, 
in every instance, a sin against God, irrespective of all other 
consequences, — and to establish further the important principle, 
that God has given sufficiently clear indications in His word, that 
it is His will that no rites and ceremonies are to be introduced into 
His worship, except those which He himself has sanctioned, — a 
principle which might have been commended to Luther's approba- 
tion, if not by its direct and appropriate scriptural evidence, though 
that is clear enough, at least through an appeal to experience, 
which clearly proves, that whenever unauthorized rites and cere- 
monies are introduced into the worship of God, there is a strong 
and never-failing tendency in men to regard the observance of 
them as meritorious in God's sight. 

So far as concerns the exposition of those fundamental truths, 
on which he chiefly dwelt, the main grounds on which, with some 
show of reason, he has been charged with exaggerated and para- 
doxical statements, are his indiscriminate abuse of the Law, his 
seeming to deny that it has any legitimate bearing upon regenerate 
men, and to deny also that there is anything really good or holy, 
even in believers. The way in which Luther sometimes speaks 
of the Law, especially in his Commentary on the Epistle to the 
Galatians, is certainly unbecoming and indecent ; but it is plain 
enough, from a fair and impartial survey of his whole doctrine 
upon this subject, that he really meant nothing more in substance 
than to shut it out, as Paul does, from all direct share in the 



106 



LUTHER. 



[Essay IT. 



justification of a sinner, and to illustrate its utter unfitness to 
serve the purposes of those who are seeking justification by deeds 
of Law. Some of his incautious statements about the relation of 
believers to the Law, gave rise afterwards to a controversy in the 
Lutheran Church, which was settled at length, along with many 
of those other internal disputes, in the Formula Concordise, in 
1588, under the title, "De tertio usu Legis ;" but Luther certainly 
never really gave any countenance to Antinomian principles, and 
strenuously inculcated the necessity and obligation of holiness of 
heart and life.* And his declarations about the non-existence of 
anything truly good or holy in regenerate persons, though some- 
what strongly and incautiously expressed, did not really mean 
more than what we all believe to be a great scriptural truth, viz. 
that the best actions of believers are stained with such imperfec- 
tion and sin, that they can have nothing justifying, and nothing 
properly and intrinsically meritorious, about them. 

But the great error of Luther, that which gives the most un- 
favourable impression of his character and mental structure, and 
which, in its influence, most extensively injured his usefulness and 
obstructed the cause of the Reformation, was his obstinate adherence 
to the unintelligible absurdity, commonly called Consubstantiation, 
— the real presence, not of Christ but of Christ's body and blood in 
the Lord's Supper, or the co-existence, in some way, of the real flesh 
and blood of Christ, in, with, or under, in } cum, or sub, the bread 
and wine in the Eucharist. This was a real remnant of Popery, 
to which, after throwing off almost everything in the doctrine of 
the Papists upon this subject that makes it valuable to them and 
offensive to us, viz. transubstantiation, or the change of the sub- 
stance of the one into that of the other, as implying the annihilation 
of the substance of the bread and wine, — the sacrifice of the Mass, 
— and the adoration of the host founded on this transubstantiation, 
he adhered with an obstinacy and intolerance most discreditable 
and most injurious to the Reformed cause. This was the chief 
subject of controversy among the Reformers in the earlier period 



* Epitome, sect. vi. Tittmann Libri 
Symbolici Ecclesise Evangelicse. The 
first use of the Law was to restrain 
the open outbreakings of depravity ; 
the second, to convince men of sin, 
and to lead them to Christ ; and the 
third, respected its bearing on be- 



lievers as a rule of life. This subject, 
of the use of the Law under the gospel 
dispensation, is stated with admirable 
clearness and precision, accuracy and 
fulness, in our own Confession, c. xix. t 
especially sects. 5 and 6. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 107 

of their labours. The controversy upon this point occupied a 
great deal of time and attention that might have been much better 
employed in opposing the common enemy ; it produced at length 
an entire separation and much alienation of feeling among them ; 
it thus led to other disputes and contentions, and tended at last to 
fix down the Lutheran Church in a much wider deviation from 
the scriptural orthodoxy of Calvin upon other points than Luther 
himself could have consistently approved of, or than, without this 
separation or alienation, would probably have been exhibited. 
The chief responsibility of controversies, and of all the evils that 
flow from them, lies upon those who take the wrong side on the 
merits of the points in dispute, because, if they had taken the right 
side of the question, as they ought to have done, there would have 
been no controversy. And in this Sacramentarian Controversy, 
as it was called, Luther certainly appeared to as little advantage 
in the moral character of the spirit which he manifested, as in the 
soundness of the doctrine which he maintained. 

Papists have been accustomed to dwell with great complacency 
on the changes which took place in Luther's views during several 
years after he published his thesis upon Indulgences ; and on this 
ground to taunt him with his inconsistencies, and to taunt Pro- 
testants with being blind followers of the blind. Audin says,* 
" What is the Lutheran doctrine % Is it faith minus indulgences, 
as in 1518 ; faith minus the priesthood, as in 1519 ; faith minus 
the sacraments of orders and extreme unction, as in 1520 ; faith 
with only two sacraments, as in 1521 ; or faith minus the mass 
and the worship of the saints, as in 1522?" So far as the charges 
here referred to affect Luther himself, they merely indicate the 
gradual progress of an honest mind, following the guidance of 
the Spirit and word of God from darkness to light ; and as to 
Protestants, even those of them who are commonly called Luthe- 
rans from their adopting the leading views of divine truth, in 
which Luther soon settled, they do not affect them at all. But 
these men seemed determined to make Luther a pope, whether he 
himself, and those who have adopted his leading principles solely 
because they believed them to be sanctioned by Scripture, will or 
not. They are so prepossessed with the duty of receiving their 
own opinions implicitly from the mouth of a fellow-sinner, that 

* P. 93. 



108 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

they seem to be incapable of conceiving of such a thing as other 
men deriving theirs from the word of God, and believing only 
what they are persuaded is sanctioned by its statements. Protes- 
tants do not regard Luther as a pope : they ascribe to him no in- 
fallibility, they receive no doctrine because he taught it ; and as to 
Luther himself, he always fully confessed, that when he first raised 
his voice against indulgences, he was little better than a blind 
Papist ; that he was involved in great ignorance and error ; that 
he had yet a great deal to learn, and that he learned slowly and 
gradually. He retracted his errors fully and frankly whenever 
he was convinced of them, and during the whole progress of his 
views, gave the most satisfactory evidence of thorough integrity 
and love of truth. And it should further be noticed, that before he 
appeared publicly as a Reformer, he had already adopted, in sub- 
stance, upon the testimony of God's word, all those fundamental 
principles in regard to the natural condition of man, and the way 
of his acceptance and deliverance, which he continued to hold 
through life ; and that the changes which his opinions underwent 
after that period, arose mainly, as is evident from even Audin's 
statement, from his gaining progressively a deeper insight into the 
mystery of Popish iniquity, from the expansive influence of the 
vital principles of Christian truth which God had implanted in his 
heart, in throwing off, one after another, the foul incrustations in 
which Popery wraps men's spirits, and from his applying fully and 
fearlessly the touchstone of the word of God, and of the great 
doctrine of a free justification purchased by Christ and imparted 
through the faith that unites with Him, to all the fearful mass of 
corruptions by which the Romish system has perverted the prin- 
ciples of God's oracles and the gospel of His grace.* Luther's 
opinions seem to have become settled within five or six years after 
the publication of his thesis ; and we do not find any evidence, 
that after that period they received any material modification. 

It may be proper to allude in conclusion to a question which 
has been much discussed in subsequent times, viz. whether 
Luther held the peculiar opinions on doctrinal points which are 
usually associated with the name of Calvin. When Luther's 
followers, in a subsequent generation, openly deviated from scrip- 
tural orthodoxy on these points, they set themselves to prove that 



Luther's Confessions and Retractations. 



Essay II.] LUTHER. 109 

Luther had never held Calvinistic principles ; and for several 
succeeding generations, Lutheran authors, in general, indulged 
in the most bitter and malignant vituperation of Calvin and his 
doctrines, more even than that which generally prevailed among 
writers of the Church of England during last century. But we 
have no hesitation in saying, that it can be established beyond all 
reasonable question, that Luther held the doctrines which are 
commonly regarded as most peculiarly Calvinistic, though he was 
never led to explain and apply, to illustrate and defend, some of 
them so fully as Calvin did. We need go no further in proof of 
this, than to his famous work, "De Servo Arbitrio," published in 
1525, in reply to Erasmus, in which he has unequivocally asserted 
the most peculiar and generally obnoxious tenets of Calvinism, in 
respect to God's sovereign agency in pre-ordaining all things ; in 
conferring, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, 
all spiritual blessings ; and in thus determining, according to His 
own good pleasure, the eternal destinies of men ; and has asserted 
them with an unshrinking boldness, and, we might say, with a 
rashness and offensiveness of statement which can certainly not 
be paralleled in the works of Calvin himself. There is no ground 
for alleging that Luther ever retracted the sentiments contained 
in this work. Indeed, at a much later period of his life, in 1537, 
he expressly declared that of all his works, his treatise, " De Servo 
Arbitrio," and his larger " Catechism," were the only ones which 
he now regarded as written with due care and accuracy. The 
Lutherans are therefore obliged to attempt to explain away the 
strong statements of this very valuable work, and to extract out 
of them their manifestly Calvinistic sense, under the cover of 
admitting, that the work does contain some rash and incautious 
declarations ; and in perusing some of their attempts of this sort, 
one is often reminded, by the boldness of their perversions, of a 
Socinian commentary upon the first chapter of John's Gospel. 
It has also been asserted, that in his Commentary upon Genesis,* 
the last work he published, he substantially though not formally 
retracted any peculiarly Calvinistic principles which he might 
previously have taught. But there is no good ground for this 
allegation ; for, upon a fair examination of the passages in the 
commentary, it appears plain, that they do not contain, even in 

* G. 26. 



110 LUTHER. [Essay II. 

substance, any retractation of his former views, but merely cautions 
to guard against the abuse of them, — against their being applied in 
an erroneous and injurious way ; while it is certain that cautions 
to the same effect, as full and strong, and in every respect as 
judicious and practical, abound in the writings of Calvin himself. 
It is highly creditable to Luther, that wdiile he was not led to 
dwell at much length upon the illustration and defence of some of 
the doctrines which are commonly reckoned Calvinistic peculiari- 
ties, he yet had the sagacity to see, that without including in his 
system these peculiar doctrines, it was impossible to maintain and 
to expound fully and consistently the sovereign agency of God in 
the salvation of sinners, or to give to the Sovereign Ruler and 
Disposer of all things the place which He claims to himself.* 



* Hottingefs Historia Eccksiastica, torn. viii. pp. 640-50. 



THE REFORMERS 



THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE 



Sir William Hamilton,! in the course of his attack upon 
Archdeacon Hare, introduces a lengthened and elaborate historico- 
theological statement, chiefly upon the subject of Assurance. We 
quote the passage, as it is the text of our present discourse : — 

" Assurance, Personal Assurance, Special Faith (the feeling of certainty) 
that God is propitious to me, that my sins are forgiven, — (Fiducia, Plerophoria 
Fidei, Fides SpeciaUs), — Assurance was long universally held in the Protestant 
communities to be the criterion and condition of a true or saving faith. Luther 
declares that ' he who hath not assurance spews faith out ; ' and Melancthon, 
that 'assurance is the discriminating line of Christianity from Heathenism.' 
Assurance is, indeed, the punctum saliens of Luther's system; and an unac- 
quaintance with this, his great central doctrine, is one prime cause of the 
chronic misrepresentation which runs through our recent histories of Luther 
and the Reformation. Assurance is no less strenuously maintained by Calvin; 
is held even by Arminius ; and stands, essentially, part and parcel of all the 
confessions of aU the churches of the Reformation, down to the Westminster 
Assembly. In that synod assurance was, in Protestantism, for the first, in- 
deed only time, formaUy declared ' not to be of the essence of faith ;' and, 



* British and Foreign Evangelical 
Review, October 1856. 

Discussions on Philosophy and 
Literature, Education and University 
Reform, etc. By Sir Wm. Hamilton, 
Bart. 1853. 

f In the interval between the pub- 
lication of the former article and the 
present one, Sir William Hamilton 
died, and Dr Cunningham, in his in- 
troductory remarks, thus refers to the 
event : — " The knowledge, if we had 



possessed it, that he was to die so soon, 
would assuredly have modified some- 
what the tone in which the discussion 
was conducted, — would have shut out 
something of its lightness and severity, 
and imparted to it more of solemnity 
and tenderness ; and the knowledge 
which we did possess, that he, as well 
as ourselves, was liable every day to 
be called out of tins world and sum- 
moned into God's presence, ought to 
have produced this result." — Eds. 



112 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. 

accordingly, the Scottish General Assembly has subsequently, once and again, 
condemned and deposed the holders of this, the doctrine of Luther, of Calvin, 
of all the other churches of the Reformation, and of the older Scottish church 
itself. In the English, and more articulately, in the Irish Establishment, 
assurance still stands a necessary tenet of ecclesiastical belief. (See Homilies, 
Book I. Number iii. Part 3, specially referred to in the eleventh of the 
Thirty-nine Articles ; and Number iv. Parts 1 and 3 ; likewise the sixth 
Lambeth Article.) Assurance was consequently held by all the older Anglican 
churchmen, of whom Hooker may stand for the example ; but assurance is 
now openly disavowed without scruple by Anglican churchmen, high and low, 
when apprehended ; but of these, many, like Mr Hare, are blissfully incog- 
nizant of the opinion, its import, its history, and even its name. 

" This dogma, with its fortune, past and present, affords, indeed, a series of 
the most curious contrasts. For it is curious that this cardinal point of Luther's 
doctrine should, without exception, have been constituted into the fundamental 
principle of all the churches of the Reformation ; and, as their common and 
uncatholic doctrine, have been explicitly condemned at Trent. Again, it is 
curious that this common and differential doctrine of the churches of the 
Reformation should now be abandoned virtually in, or formally by, all these 
churches themselves. Again, it is curious that Protestants should now gene- 
rally profess the counter doctrine, asserted at Trent in condemnation of their 
peculiar principle. Again, it is curious that this, the most important variation 
in the faith of Protestants, as, in fact, a gravitation of Protestantism back 
towards Catholicity, should have been overlooked, as indeed, in his days, un- 
developed, by the keen-eyed author of ' The History of the Variations of the 
Protestant Churches.' Finally, it is curious that, though now fully developed, 
this central approximation of Protestantism to Catholicity should not, as far 
as I know, have been signalized by any theologian, Protestant or Catholic ; 
whilst the Protestant symbol (' Fides sola justificat^ — ' Faith alone justifies'), 
though now eviscerated of its real import, and now only manifesting an unim- 
portant difference of expression, is still supposed to mark the discrimination of 
the two religious denominations. For both agree that the three heavenly 
virtues must all concur to salvation; and they only differ, whether faith, as a 
word, does or does not involve hope and charity. This misprision would have 
been avoided had Luther and Calvin only said, ' Fiducia sola justificatj— 
'Assurance alone justifies;' for on their doctrine assurance was convertible 
with true faith, and true faith implied the other Christian graces. But this 
primary and peculiar doctrine of the Reformation is now harmoniously con- 
demned by Catholics and Protestants in unison."* 

We hope to be able to prove that this elaborate statement 
contains about as large an amount of inaccuracy as could well 
have been crammed into the space which it occupies ; and if we 
succeed in doing this, we may surely expect that Sir William's 

* Discussions, 2d Ed., pp. 508-9. 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 113 

authority upon theological subjects will henceforth stand at least 
as low as zero. 

It may help us to form an estimate of the accuracy of Sir 
William's history of this subject, if we begin with a brief state- 
ment of what were the views of the Reformers and the Romanists 
upon this point, and of what was the general course which the 
discussions regarding it followed. That the Reformers generally 
held very high views upon the subject, — that they were in the 
habit of speaking very strongly of the importance and necessity 
of men being personally assured about their own salvation, — is of 
course well known to every one who has the slightest acquaintance 
with their history and writings. The causes that tended to produce 
a leaning towards what may be regarded as exaggerated views 
and statements upon this subject, were chiefly these two : — 1st, 
Their own personal experience as converted and believing men ; 
and 2d } The ground taken by the Romanists in arguing against 
them. 

The Reformers, speaking of them generally as a body, and with 
reference to their ordinary condition, seem to have enjoyed usually 
an assurance of being in a state of grace, and of being warranted 
to count upon salvation. God seems to have given to them the 
grace of assurance more fully and more generally than He does 
to believers in ordinary circumstances. And this is in accordance 
w T ith the general course of His providential procedure. The his- 
tory of the church seems to indicate to us two positions as true, 
with reference to this matter, — viz. 1st, That assurance of salva- 
tion has been enjoyed more fully and more generally by men who 
were called to difficult and arduous labours in the cause of Christ, 
than by ordinary believers in general ; and 2dly, That this 
assurance, as enjoyed by such persons, has been frequently trace- 
able to special circumstances connected with the manner of their 
conversion as its immediate or proximate cause. So it certainly 
was with the Reformers. The position in which they were placed, 
and the work they were called upon to do, made it specially 
necessary that they should enjoy habitually the courage and the 
strength which spring from a well-grounded assurance of salva- 
tion. This, accordingly, God gave them ; and He gave them it in 
many cases, as He has often done in subsequent times, by so regu- 
lating the circumstances which preceded and accompanied their 
conversion, as to satisfy them, almost as if by a perception of 

YOL. I. 8 



*/ 



114 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. 

their senses, that they had passed from death unto life. The 
Reformers having been in general, for these reasons and by such 
processes, assured ordinarily of their own salvation, were not 
unnaturally led, from this cause, to give great prominence to 
the subject of assurance, and to regard and to represent it as in 
some way or other necessarily connected with the Christian faith, 
and as an indispensable constituent element of the Christian 
character. 

But, in the second place, the Reformers were the more induced 
to adhere to this view, and to exert themselves to establish and 
defend it, in consequence of the ground that was taken up by 
their Popish antagonists. The Romanists then, as well as now, 
were accustomed to allege that it was impossible for Protestants , 
to have any certainty of the soundness of their views, or of the 
safety of their position, — that though they might be able to pro- 
duce plausible and apparently satisfactory pleadings in support 
of what they taught, they could have no adequate ground for 
perfect assurance of its truth ; while Romanists had a firm 
ground for absolute certainty in the testimony or authority of 
the church. There were three important subjects to which 
chiefly the Romanists were accustomed to apply this alleged 
point of contrast between their position and that of the Re- 
formers. They were accustomed to allege that Protestants, upon 
Protestant principles, could have no certainty, and nothing more 
than a probable persuasion, 1st, That the books generally re- 
ceived, or any particular books specified, were possessed of divine 
authority ; or 2d, That this and not that was the meaning of a 
scriptural passage, or the substance of what Scripture taught 
upon a particular topic ; or 3d, That any particular individual 
was now in a state of grace and would be finally saved. The 
more reasonable Romanists did not deny that there were rational 
considerations bearing upon the establishment of the divine autho- 
rity of the books of Scripture, sufficient to silence and confute 
infidels ; or that, by the ordinary rules and resources of exegesis, 
something might be done towards settling the meaning of many 
scriptural statements ; or that men, by a diligent and impartial 
use of scriptural materials, combined with self-examination, might 
attain to good hope with respect to their ultimate salvation. But 
they denied that Protestants could ever attain to full and per- 
fect certainty upon any of these points, — could ever reach such 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 115 

thorough and conclusive assurance as the authority of the church 
furnished to those who received it. Protestants, in dealing with 
this allegation, were not unnaturally led to maintain, that upon 
all these subjects they had, or might have, not merely a probable 
persuasion, but a strict and absolute certainty, and to labour to 
unfold the grounds of the certainty to which they laid claim. It 
was here that many of the Reformers were led to propound views 
which appear to have been somewhat extreme and exaggerated, 
both in regard to the kind and degree of the certainty they con- 
tended for, and the grounds on which they professed to establish 
its reality and legitimacy. Protestants are not infallible any more 
than Papists. Neither the great Reformers of the sixteenth cen- 
tury, nor the great systematic divines of the seventeenth, are to 
be implicitly followed. The truth is, that God has never yet 
given to any body of uninspired men to rise altogether, and in 
every respect, in their mode of dealing with the doctrines of His 
word, above the influence of their circumstances. There has 
never been any uninspired man, or any company of uninspired 
men, that has not given some indication of the imperfection of 
humanity, in their mode of dealing with some portion or other 
of divine truth. The Reformers, as a body, are unquestionably 
more entitled to deference in matters of theological doctrine than 
any other body of men who have adorned the church since the 
apostolic age. But there can be no reasonable doubt that there 
are some doctrinal points on which many of them have gone 
astray, either from retaining something of the corruption of the 
Popish system which they had abandoned, or, what is about 
equally natural and probable, in consequence of the imperfection 
of human nature, from running into an extreme opposite to that 
which they had forsaken. 

It is pretty evident that the Papists, by taunting the Reformers 
with their want of certainty on the three points to which we have 
referred, drove them into the assertion of extreme and untenable 
positions. The Reformers claimed for their convictions and con- 
clusions on these questions a kind and degree of certainty which 
the nature of the subject did not admit of, and they fell into 
further errors in endeavouring to set forth the grounds or reasons 
of the certainty or assurance for which they contended. They 
contended that they had, or might have, a perfect and absolute 
certainty in regard to all those matters, — a certainty resting not 



116 THE EEFOEMEES [Essay III. 

only upon rational grounds and a human faith, as it was called, 
but upon supernatural grounds and a divine faith, such as their 
Popish opponents were accustomed to ascribe to the authority of 
the church when it set forth any doctrine and called upon men 
to believe it as revealed by God. And as a substitute for the 
authority of the church, the Popish ground for an absolute 
assurance and divine faith, the Reformers were accustomed to 
bring in the agency of the Holy Spirit, as producing certainty 
or assurance; and they did this not unfrequently in a way 
that seemed to be liable to the charge at least of confusion and 
irrelevancy. 

The Reformers ought not to have allowed the Romanists to 
drag them into perplexed metaphysical discussions as to the nature 
and grounds of the certainty with which they held then' convic- 
tions upon the important topics to which we have referred. They 
would thus have escaped the temptation to which, we think, it 
must be admitted they sometimes yielded, of straining matters in 
order to get something like a ground for a kind and measure of 
certainty which the nature of the case did not admit of. 

It was enough that they could produce adequate rational 
grounds for all their convictions, — grounds which fully satisfied 
their own minds, and which they could defend conclusively against 
the objections of gainsayers, as being sufficient and satisfactory 
reasons of assent. This was all that their opponents had a right 
to demand ; and this was all that could legitimately come into a 
controversial discussion. The vividness and efficacy of these con- 
victions might be somewhat affected by the kind and degree of 
evidence bearing upon the particular topic under consideration, 
or by the qualities of their mental constitution and habits, or by 
other collateral and adventitious influences. But a real conviction 
or assent, based upon rational grounds, which were perfectly 
satisfactory to their own minds, and the relevancy and validity 
of which they could triumphantly defend against all opponents, 
was quite sufficient, whether this might be called a certainty of 
faith or not ; and if this conviction did not produce in their minds 
such a sense or feeling of assurance as they desired, if it did not 
prove so practically efficacious as they wished, it would be quite 
reasonable that they should ask the special blessing of God, the 
agency of the Holy Spirit, to bring about these results. And their 
prayers might be answered, the Spirit might be given, and the 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 117 

strongest, the most vivid, and the most efficacious certainty or 
assurance might be produced, without anything like a special 
revelation, and without the introduction of any new or additional 
grounds or reasons for the conviction. The Reformers, however, 
in their eagerness to claim for their convictions the very highest 
certainty or assurance, and to assign an adequate cause for this, 
by substituting the Holy Spirit instead of the church, went some- 
times to the unwarrantable extreme of ascribing to the Holy Spirit 
not merely a subjective influence upon men's understandings and 
hearts, but an objective presentation of new and additional grounds 
and reasons for belief. 

These general observations apply to the way in which the 
Reformers met the allegations of the Romanists, about their want 
of certainty or assurance in regard to all the three subjects formerly 
mentioned, viz. the divine authority of the books of Scripture, 
the meaning of scriptural statements, and the certainty of personal 
salvation. In order to have a sure and at the same time a com- 
pendious w T ay of getting the highest assurance, even the certainty 
of faith, upon all these subjects, they substituted the Holy Spirit 
instead of the church ; and to make this serve the same purpose 
in argument as the church does among Romanists, they were led 
to employ some modes of statement about the Spirit's operation 
which are not sanctioned by Scripture, though exhibiting perhaps 
rather confusion of thought than positive error. But we cannot 
dwell upon this general topic, and must return to the special sub- 
ject of the assurance of personal salvation, with which alone we 
have at present to do. 

The Reformers in general enjoyed ordinarily the assured belief 
that they were in a state of grace, and would be finally saved. 
They felt the importance of this grace in the arduous work in 
which they were engaged. They saw abundant ground in Scrip- 
ture for the general position, that believers might be and should 
be assured of their own salvation. They inculcated this position 
upon their followers, persuaded that personal assurance would at 
once tend to preserve them from the perverting influence of Popish 
sophists, and fit them for doing and bearing all God's will con- 
cerning them. The Romanists, on the other hand, laboured to 
show that believers could have no full and well-grounded assurance 
that they had attained to a condition of safety, except either by 
special revelation or by the testimony of the church ; their object 



118 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. 

of course being to make men feel themselves entirely dependent 
upon the church for security or certainty on all subjects of interest 
and importance, and to deprive them of the energy and confidence 
which a well-founded assurance of personal salvation was fitted 
to produce, in contending against the prestige of ecclesiastical 
authority and influence. The Reformers, in order to show that 
the assurance which might be attained without either a special 
revelation or the testimony of the church was full and perfect, 
were led to identify it with our belief in the doctrines of God's 
word, and to represent it as necessarily included or implied in the 
act or exercise of justifying and saving faith ; nay, even sometimes 
to give it as the very definition of saving faith, that it is a belief 
that our own sins have been forgiven, and that we have been 
brought into a state of grace. This seemed to be an obvious and 
ready method of giving to the belief of our personal safety for 
eternity the very highest degree of certainty, and hence many of 
the Reformers were tempted to adopt it. 

This view was certainly exaggerated and erroneous. It is 
very evident that no man can be legitimately assured of his own 
salvation simply by understanding and believing what is contained 
or implied in the actual statements of Scripture. Some addi- 
tional element of a different kind must be brought in, in order to 
warrant such an assurance ; something in the state or condition 
of the man himself must be in some way ascertained and known 
in order to this result. It may not, indeed, always require any 
lengthened or elaborate process of self-examination to ascertain 
what is needful to be known about men themselves, in order to 
their being assured that they have been brought into a state of 
grace. The circumstances that preceded and accompanied their 
conversion may have been such as to leave them in no doubt 
about their having passed from darkness to light. Their present 
consciousness may testify at once and explicitly to the existence 
in them of those things which the Bible informs us accompany 
salvation. But still it is true, that another element than any- 
thing contained in Scripture must be brought in as a part of the 
foundation of their assurance. And when they are called upon 
to state and vindicate to themselves or to others the grounds of 
their assurance, they must of necessity proceed in substance in 
the line of the familiar syllogism, " Whosoever believeth in the 
Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved ; I believe, and therefore," etc. 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 119 

There is no possibility of avoiding in substance some such process 
as this ; and while the major proposition is proved by Scripture, 
the minor can be established only by some use of materials derived 
from consciousness and self-examination. There are no positions 
connected with religion which can be so certain as those which 
are directly and immediately taught in Scripture, and which are 
usually said to be believed with the certainty of faith or of divine 
faith. The introduction of an element, as necessary to the con- 
clusion, derived from a different source, viz. from the knowledge 
of what we ourselves are, must be admitted in fairness to compli- 
cate the evidence, and to affect the kind if not the degree of the 
certainty or assurance that may result from it. It is unwarrant- 
able to give as the definition of saving faith, the belief that my 
sins are forgiven ; for it is not true that my sins are forgiven 
until I believe, and it holds true universally, that God requires 
us to believe nothing which is not true before we believe it, and 
which may not be propounded to us to be believed, accompanied 
at the same time with satisfactory evidence of its truth ; and if 
so, the belief that our sins are forgiven, and that we have been 
brought into a state of grace, must be posterior in the order of 
nature, if not of time, to the act of faith by which the change 
is effected, and cannot therefore form a necessary constituent 
element of the act itself, cannot be its essence or belong to its 
essence. 

It is not very surprising that Luther should have made rash 
and exaggerated statements upon this subject as he did upon 
others. But it is certainly strange, that a man of such wonderful 
soundness and penetration of judgment as Calvin should have 
said, as he did say,* " We shall have a complete definition of 
faith, if we say that it is a steady and certain knowledge of the 
divine benevolence towards us, which, being founded on the truth 
of the gratuitous promise in Christ, is both revealed to our minds 
and confirmed to our hearts by the Holy Spirit ;" and that this 
in substance should have been pretty generally, though not uni- 
versally, received as a just definition or description of saving faith, 
both by Lutheran and Calvinistic divines, for the greater part of 
a century. We cannot but look upon this as an illustration of 
the pernicious influence of men's circumstances upon the forma-" 



* Instit. 1. iii. c. ii. sec. 7. 



120 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. 

tion of their opinions, — a view of the matter decidedly confirmed 
by the fact, that neither Luther nor Calvin, nor the other eminent 
divines who have sanctioned this notion of the nature and import 
of faith, have been able to carry it out in full consistency, but 
have become entangled in contradictions. Luther, indeed, con- 
tradicted himself very explicitly upon this point ; for while there 
are passages in his works which very unequivocally represent 
personal assurance as necessarily involved in saving faith, and 
while this doctrine is taught in the Confession of Augsburg,* 
and in the Apology for it,f — both which works are symbolical in 
the Lutheran church, — it is easy enough to produce from his 
writings passages in which a broader and more correct view is 
given of the nature of saving faith, as having respect directly and 
primarily only to truths and promises actually contained in Scrip- 
ture, and of course only secondarily and inferentially to anything 
bearing upon our personal condition and prospects. Calvin never 
contradicted himself so plainly and palpably as this. But in 
immediate connection with the definition above given from him of 
saving faith, he has made statements with respect to the condition 
of mind that may exist in believers, which cannot well be recon- 
ciled with the formal definition, except upon the assumption that 
the definition was intended not so much to state what was essential 
to true faith and always found in it, as to describe what true faith 
is or includes, in its most perfect condition and in its highest 
exercise. As the passage is valuable in itself, and is well fitted to 
throw light upon the real views of the Reformers, and to illustrate 
the danger of judging of what these views were from a superficial 
examination of their writings or of isolated extracts from them, 
we shall quote it at some length, though we fear most men will . 
be of opinion that Calvin has not very fully solved the difficulty 
which he started : — 

" But some one will object that the experience of believers is very different 
from this ; for that, in recognising the grace of God towards them, they are 
not only disturbed with inquietude which frequently befalls them, but some- 
times also tremble with the most distressing terrors. The vehemence of temp- 
tations to agitate their minds is so great, that it appears scarcely compatible 
with that assurance of faith of which we have been speaking. "We must there- 
fore solve this difficulty, if we mean to support the doctrine we have advanced. 



* Art. iv. 

f Tittmann's Libri Symbolici Ecclesix Evangelicse, pp. 13 and 58. 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTKINE OF ASSURANCE. 121 

"When we inculcate that faith ought to be certain and secure, we conceive not 
of a certainty attended with no doubt, or of a security interrupted by no 
anxiety ; but we rather affirm that believers have a perpetual conflict with 
their own diffidence, and are far from placing their consciences in a placid 
calm never disturbed by any storms. Yet, on the other hand, we deny, how- 
ever they may be afflicted, that they ever fall and depart from that certain 
confidence which they have conceived in the divine mercy. The Scripture 
proposes no example of faith more illustrious or memorable than David, espe- 
cially if you consider the whole course of his life. Yet that his mind was 
not invariably serene appears from his innumerable complaints, of which it 

will be sufficient to select a few To render this intelligible, it is 

necessary to recur to that division of the flesh and the spirit which we noticed 
in another place, and which most clearly discovers itself in this case. The 
pious heart therefore perceives a division in itself, being partly affected with 
delight through a knowledge of the divine goodness, partly distressed with 
sorrow through a sense of its own calamity ; partly relying on the promise of 
the gospel, partly trembling at the evidence of its own iniquity ; partly exult- 
ing in the knowledge of life, partly alarmed by the fear of death. This varia- 
tion happens through the imperfection of faith ; since we are never so happy 
during the present life as to be cured of all diffidence, and entirely filled and 
possessed by faith. Hence those conflicts, in which the diffidence which adheres 
to the relics of the flesh rises up in opposition to the faith formed in the heart. 
But if in the mind of the believer assurance be mixed with doubts, do we not 
always come to this point, that faith consists not in a certain and clear, but 
only in an obscure and perplexed knowledge of the divine will respecting us ? 
Not at all. For if we are distracted by various thoughts, we are not therefore 
entirely divested of faith ; neither, though harassed by the agitations of diffi- 
dence, are we therefore immerged in its abyss ; nor if we be shaken, are we 
therefore overthrown. For the invariable issue of this contest is, that faith at 
length surmounts those difficulties from which, while it is encompassed with 
them, it appears to be in danger."* 

Other proofs might be adduced that the Reformers, when 
judged of as they should be, by a deliberate and conjunct view 
of all they have said upon the subject, did not carry their doctrine 
of assurance to such extremes as we might be warranted in ascrib- 
ing to them because of some of their more formal statements, 
intended to tell upon their controversies with Romanists regarding 
this matter. And more than this, the real difference between the 
Reformers and the Romanists upon the subject of assurance, when 
calmly and deliberately investigated, was not quite so important as 
the combatants on either side imagined, and did not -really respect 



B. iii. c. ii. s. 17, 18. 



122 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. 

the precise questions which persons imperfectly acquainted with the 
works on both sides might naturally enough regard it as involving. 

With respect to the nature of saving faith the principal ground 
of controversy was this, that the Romanists held that it had its 
seat in the intellect, and was properly and fundamentally assent 
(assensus) ; while the Reformers in general maintained that it had 
its seat in the will, and was properly and essentially trust (fiducia). 
The great majority of eminent Protestant divines have adhered to 
the view + s of the Reformers upon this point, though some have 
taken the opposite side, and have held faith, properly so called, to 
be the mere assent of the understanding to truth propounded by 
God in His word ; while they represent trust and other graces 
as the fruits or consequences, and not as constituent parts and 
elements, of faith. This controversy cannot be held to be of very 
great importance, so long as the advocates of the position, that 
faith is in itself the simple belief of the truth, admit that true 
faith necessarily and invariably produces trust and other graces, 
— an admission which is cheerfully made by all the Protestant 
defenders of this view, and which its Popish advocates, though 
refusing in words, are obliged to make in substance in another 
form. There is an appearance of greater simplicity and meta- 
physical accuracy in representing faith as in itself a mere assent 
to truth, and trust and other graces as its necessary consequences. 
But the right question is, What is the meaning attached in Scrip- 
ture to the faith which justifies and saves ? Upon this question 
we agree with the Reformers in thinking, that in Scripture usage 
faith is applied, in its highest and most important sense, only to a 
state of mind of which trust in Christ as a Saviour is a necessary 
constituent element. This question about the nature of justifying 
faith is not determined in the Westminster Confession, the leading 
symbol of the great body of Presbyterians throughout the w T orld ; 
and it is well that it is left in that condition, for if it had been 
settled there in accordance with the views of the Reformers and 
the compilers of the Confession, this would have excluded from 
the Church of Scotland Dr John Erskine and Dr Thomas 
Chalmers. 

There was not among the Reformers, and there has not been 
among modern Protestants, unanimity as to what is involved in 
the fiducia which is included in justifying faith. The generality 
of modern divines and some of the Reformers held that this fiducia 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 123 

was just trust or confidence in Christ's person, as distinguished 
from mere belief of the truth concerning Him, and as involving 
some special application or appropriation to ourselves of the dis- 
coveries and provisions of the gospel, but not, directly and 
immediately, any opinion or conviction as to our actual personal 
condition ; while the generality of the Reformers, and some 
modern divines, especially those known in Scotland as Marrow- 
men, have regarded it as comprehending this last element also, 
and have thus come to maintain that personal assurance is neces- 
sarily and directly included in the exercise of saving faith, or 
belongs to its essence. 

But though a considerable number of the Reformers held this 
view, and although, as we have explained, they were probably led 
into the adoption of it by their controversy with the Romanists, 
yet the truth or falsehood of this view did not form the real or 
main subject of controversy between them. The leading topic of 
discussion was this, Whether, without any special revelation, be- 
lievers could and should (possent et deberent) be assured of their 
justification and salvation. This was practically the question that 
was controverted. It is one of great practical importance, and 
orthodox Protestant divines, in general, have continued ever since 
to concur with the Reformers in answering it in the affirmative. 
But though this was practically the real point controverted, — 
though the Papists were most anxious to persuade men that 
they could attain to no certainty upon this point, except either by 
a special revelation or by the testimony of the church, — yet this 
was not just the precise form which the question assumed in the 
controversy; and the reason of this was one which we have already 
hinted at, viz. that the more reasonable Romanists shrank from 
meeting the question, as thus put, with a direct negative, and fell 
back upon the topic of the kind or degree of the assurance or cer- 
tainty that was ordinarily attainable by believers. Into this dis- 
cussion of the nature and grounds of the certainty that might 
attach to this matter, the Reformers were unfortunately tempted 
to follow their opponents. In the heat of controversy many of 
them were led to lay down the untenable position, that the cer- 
tainty or assurance ordinarily attainable by believers was of the 
highest and most perfect description, — that it was the certainty of 
faith, or, as they sometimes expressed it, the certainty of divine 
faith, the same certainty with which men believe in the plainly 



124 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. 

revealed doctrines of God's word. And then, again, it teas as an 
argument or proof in support of this extreme and untenable position 
as to the hind or degree of certainty, that they were led on to assert, 
that this personal assurance was necessarily involved in justifying 
faith, — nay, was its distinguishing characteristic, and belonged of 
course to its essence. 

That the account now given of the subordinate, and as we 
might call it accidental place held in the doctrinal system of the 
Beformers by their extreme views of the nature of the certainty 
or assurance which they asserted, and of the argument which they 
advanced in support of it, is well founded, may be shown by the 
important fact, that while many of them taught these views in 
their private writings, and in some of their polemical and practical 
treatises, they did not introduce them into their confessions of 
faith, into compositions intended to be symbolical and to define 
the terms of ministerial communion. They are taught, indeed, 
as we have mentioned, in the Confession of Augsburg, and the 
Apology for it. They are also set forth pretty explicitly in the 
Saxon and Wirtemberg Confessions, which are both Lutheran 
documents, — the first having been composed by Melancthon, and 
the second by Brentius.* But they are not taught in the confes- 
sions of the Reformed or Calvinistic churches. The earliest con- 
fessions of the Reformed churches are the two Confessions of 
Basle, and there is no statement of them to be found there. Calvin 
had undoubtedly taught in his " Institutes," and also in his " Cate- 
chism" of Geneva, that saving faith necessarily includes or implies 
personal assurance. But he did not introduce any statement to 
this effect into the Confession of the French Protestant Church. 
It is doubtful, indeed, whether Calvin composed the French Con- 
fession, or only revised and sanctioned it. But this latter view is 
enough for our present purpose ; and besides, if the Confession 
was not originally composed by Calvin, it was composed by Antony 
Chandieu or Sadeel, and he had taught in his own writings the 
same views as Calvin upon this subject, though neither he nor 
Calvin seems to have thought of introducing them into the Con- 
fession. In the Palatine or Heidelberg Catechism, which was 
not originally intended to be symbolical, but was rather adapted 
for popular instruction, faith is described as necessarily com- 



* Harmonia Confesslonum Fidei, Genevse, 1581, pp. 154-5, 160, 207-9. 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 



125 



prehending assurance.* The • Belgic Confession, composed in 
1563, contains no assertion of these views, though its authors 
probably believed them, as they afterwards added the Heidelberg 
Catechism to their Confession as symbolical. The later Helvetic 
Confession, composed in 1566, and approved of by most of the 
Reformed churches, gives no countenance to these peculiar 
opinions. And lastly, the Synod of Dort, in 1618, representing 
almost all the Reformed churches, not only gave no sanction to 
these views, but made statements which can scarcely be reconciled 
with them, and which form part of the evidence by which it may 
be shown, that a more careful and exact analysis of these matters 
was leading men's minds rather in a direction opposite to the views 
of the Reformers upon this subject, and thus paving the way for 
the more explicit rejection of them by the Westminster Assembly. 
Now, let it be remembered that we do not assert that the 
authors of these documents did not hold the same views as Luther 
and Calvin upon the subjects of faith and assurance, and the 
relation subsisting between them. We concede that, generally 
speaking, they did hold the same views as these leading Reformers. 
We concede, too, that in some of these confessions there are ex- 
pressions employed which indicate plainly enough, to competent 
judges, that they held these views. But these concessions being 
made, we still think it a consideration of great importance, that 



* (Q. 21.) It seems to have been 
chiefly the Geneva and the Heidelberg 
Catechisms that Perkins had in view 
in an interesting passage in his " Re- 
formed Catholic," published in 1598. 
Perkins was a very eminent divine, a 
thorough Calvinist, and a man of dis- 
tinguished piety. The passage we re- 
fer to may be regarded as an evidence 
that, before the end of the sixteenth 
century, some of the most competent 
judges were seeing that the language 
of the Reformers upon this subject re- 
quired some modification. It is as 
follows : — " This doctrine (that of im- 
plied or infolded faith) is to be learned 
for two causes : First of all, it serves 
to rectify the consciences of weak ones, 
that they be not deceived touching 
their estate. For if we think that no 
faith can save but a full persuasion, 
such as the faith of Abraham was, 
many truly bearing the name of Christ 



must be put out of the roll of the chil- 
dren of God. We are therefore to 
know that there is a growth in grace 
as in nature ; and there be differences 
and degrees of true faith, and the least 
of them all is infolded faith. Se- 
condly, this point of doctrine serves to 
rectify and in part to expound sundry 
catechisms, in that they seem to pro- 
pound faith unto men at so high a 
reach as few can attain unto it, — 
defining it to be a certain and full per- 
suasion of God's love and favour in 
Christ ; whereas, though every faith be 
from its nature a certain persuasion, 
yet only the strong faith is the full 
persuasion. Therefore, faith is not 
only in general terms to be defined, 
but also the degrees and measures 
thereof are to be expounded,that weak 
ones, to their comfort, may be truly 
informed of their estate." — Perkins'' 
Reformed Catholic, pp. 27-1-5 



126 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. 

they did not distinctly embody them in their confessions of faith, 
as this proves that they did not really occupy any such place in 
their system of theology as some of their statements, made in the 
heat of controversy, might lead us to suppose. 

The account we have given of the views of the Reformers 
and the Romanists upon the subject of faith and assurance, and 
of the course which the discussion regarding it took, is sufficient, 
at once and of itself, if it be well founded, to overturn some of 
Sir William's leading positions in his history of this matter. But 
we must now look at his statements more closely and directly. 
His first leading position is this : — 

" Assurance, Personal Assurance, Special Faith (the feeling of 
certainty that God is propitious to me, that my sins are forgiven, — 
Fiducia, Plerophoria Fidei, Fides Specialis), — Assurance was long 
universally held in the Protestant communities to be the criterion 
and condition of a true or saving faith" Here the first thing to 
be noted is the assumption, that " personal assurance, special faith, 
— fiducia, plerophoria fidei, fides specialist do, in the writings of 
the Reformers, all mean one and the same thing ; and that this 
one thing is " the feeling of certainty that God is propitious to 
me, that my sins are forgiven." We could easily show that this 
assumption involves great ignorance of the usus loquendi of the 
Reformers, that the different words are used in different senses, 
and that the same word is used in different senses by different 
authors. But it is not worth while to dwell upon this point. The 
statement, that " assurance was long universally held in the Pro- 
testant communities to -be the criterion and condition of a true 
and saving faith," is not correct. For it has been proved that 
Peter Martyr, Musculus, and Zanchius, three of the most eminent 
divines at the period of the Reformation, did not hold this view of 
the nature of saving faith. The allegation that " assurance is 
the punctum saliens of Luther's system" is one which no man 
acquainted with Luther's writings can believe. The assertion 
that " assurance stands, essentially, part and parcel of all the 
confessions of all the churches of the Reformation down to the 
Westminster Assembly," is utterly untrue. We have already 
explained how this matter stands as a question of fact, in regard 
to the earliest and most important confessions. If Sir William's 
assertion had any foundation in truth, the passages teaching the 
doctrine of assurance might easily be produced. But no such 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 127 

passages have been or can be produced, because they have no 
existence. 

Sir William is in substance right in saying, that in the West- 
minster Assembly assurance was formally declared not to be of 
the essence of faith ; and he is right also in saying, that this was 
then done for the first time by an ecclesiastical synod, though, as 
we have already remarked, the Synod of Dort paved the way for it. 
It is of more importance to remark, that this decision of the West- 
minster Assembly has been generally acquiesced in ever since by 
the great body of Calvinists and Presbyterians over the world. 

Sir William's next statement, viz. that on the ground of this 
deliverance of the Westminster Assembly, " the Scottish General 
Assembly has once and again deposed the holders of this, the 
doctrine of Luther and Calvin, of all the other churches of the 
Reformation, and of the older Scottish church itself," is a curious 
mixture of truth and error, though the error preponderates. 
If the doctrine that assurance is not of the essence of faith be 
plainly asserted in the standards of a church, and be thus explicitly 
assented to by every minister as a condition of his ordination, it 
does not appear why it should be held up as something monstrous, 
that men who may come afterwards to reject this doctrine should 
forfeit their office as ministers in that church, though it would no 
doubt be a very painful thing to have to cut off a brother who 
held no erroneous views except upon this one point. Sir Wil- 
liam's statement is plainly fitted and intended to convey the 
impression that cases of this kind have occurred in the Church of 
Scotland ; or, that men have been deposed merely because they 
held the views of the Reformers upon this point, while they were 
not charged with any other doctrinal errors. This impression 
is erroneous. No such cases have ever occurred. In the only 
instances, and they have been very few, in which ministers hold- 
ing that assurance is of the essence of saving faith have been 
subjected to ecclesiastical discipline, this error was held in con- 
junction with the much more serious one of universal atonement, 
or universal pardon, which it naturally tends to introduce ; and it 
was no doubt the maintenance of this second and more serious 
error that reconciled the heart and conscience of the church to the 
infliction of censure. 

Sir William's assertion, that the doctrine of assurance being of 
the essence of faith was that "of the older Scottish church itself," 



128 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. 

has an appearance of truth about it, but it is fitted likewise to 
convey a false impression of the facts of the case. There is suffi- 
cient evidence that the older Scottish church, or the first genera- 
tion of Protestant ministers in Scotland, held in general the same 
views of faith and assurance as were taught by Luther and 
Calvin. But they had not embodied these views in any public 
symbolical documents, or required the belief of them as a term of 
ministerial communion ; and yet this is plainly the impression 
which Sir William's statement is fitted to produce. In the old 
Scottish Confession of Faith, prepared by John Knox, and adopted 
by the General Assembly in 1560, these views are certainly not 
asserted. It contains nothing on this or any other subject, which 
might not be assented to by men who had subscribed the West- 
minster Confession. The only thing bearing upon these views 
that can in any sense be regarded as a deliverance of the church, 
is, that the National Covenant of 1581 contains a condemnation 
of the " general and cloubtsome faith of the Papists ; " — a state- 
ment which, whatever we may know otherwise of the opinions of 
its authors, is far too vague to commit the church, or any who 
subscribed the document, to the definite doctrine, that assurance 
is of the essence of saving faith. 

Sir William's next statement is an astounding one : " In the 
English, and more articulately in the Irish Establishment, assur- 
ance still stands a necessary tenet of ecclesiastical belief." This, 
we presume, will be a piece of news to the clergy of the English 
and Irish Establishments. We venture to assert, that not one 
of the 18,000 or 20,000 clergymen who represent the United 
Church of England and Ireland, has ever imagined that he had 
come under an obligation to believe and to teach " assurance;" — 
by which of course Sir William means, as the whole scope of the 
passage shows, notwithstanding the obscurity and confusion of his 
language, the doctrine that assurance of personal salvation is essen- 
tial to, and is necessarily included or implied in, justifying faith. 
But Sir William has referred to proofs and authorities upon this 
point, and what are they? He gives them thus: — " See Homilies, 
Book i. Number iii. Part 3, specially referred to in the eleventh 
of the Thirty-nine Articles ; and Number iv. Parts 1 and 3 ; like- 
wise the sixth Lambeth Article." The authorities here referred 
to are two, viz. the first Book of the Homilies, and the Lambeth 
Articles. 



Essay HI.] AND THE DOCTKINE OF ASSURANCE. 129 

Now, in regard to the Books of the Homilies, we think it can 
be shown, 1st, That they are not properly symbolical books of 
the Church of England, so that the clergy are to be held bound to 
maintain and teach everything contained in them ; and 2d, That 
though the Homilies contain plain enough indications that the 
views entertained by most of the Keformers were held also in the 
Church of England, they do not exhibit distinct and definite 
statements of these peculiar opinions. 

The extent to which the Church of England is committed to 
the Homilies is this, that in her 35th Article she has declared that 
" the second Book of Homilies doth contain a godly and whole- 
some doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former 
Book of Homilies ; and therefore we judge them to be read in 
churches by ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be 
understood by the people," — and that the 11th Article refers to 
one of the Homilies for a fuller setting forth of the doctrine of 
justification. Now this does not necessarily imply, and has never 
been regarded as implying, that the Church of England took her 
ministers bound to believe and to teach everything contained in 
these books. The Homilies were intended to furnish materials for 
popular instruction, and not to regulate the terms of ministerial 
communion. A conscientious man, who had subscribed the 
Articles, would not, indeed, consider himself at liberty, without 
first renouncing his position, to oppose the general scope and main 
substance of the views of doctrine and duty contained in the 
Homilies ; for, by subscribing the Articles, he has declared this to 
be godly and wholesome : but the most conscientious men would 
deny that they were committed to all and everything contained in 
the Homilies. And they would take this ground, not from loose 
views of what subscription to symbols implies, but because they 
have never subscribed the Homilies, or done anything equivalent 
to this. In short, what is said in the Articles about the Homilies 
does not make the Homilies Articles, does not raise them to the 
same level, does not incorporate them with that primary and 
fundamental symbol. The statement in the 7th Article, that "the 
three Creeds ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they 
may be proved by most certain warrants of holy writ," no doubt 
incorporates the Creeds with the Articles, and makes them equally 
binding; but nothing like this is said about the Homilies, and 
therefore they stand upon a different footing. On these grounds 

VOL. I. 9 



130 THE REFORMERS ' [Essay III. 

we contend, that an incidental statement of the doctrine of assur- 
ance in the Homilies, would not have afforded an adequate ground 
for Sir William's allegation, that this doctrine " still stands a 
necessary tenet of ecclesiastical belief." 

We have now to remark, in the second place, that anything 
said about this doctrine in the Homilies is not only incidental, but 
indefinite. The principal passages bearing upon the point are 
these : — " For the right and true Christian faith is, not only to 
believe that the Holy Scriptures and all the foresaid articles of 
our faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence in 
God's merciful promises, to be saved from everlasting damnation 
by Christ ; whereof doth follow a loving heart to obey His com- 
mandments." And again : " And this [a quick or living faith] is 
not only the common belief of the articles of our faith, but is also 
a true trust and confidence of the mercy of God through our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and a stedfast hope of all things to be received at His 
hands." While these statements are quite explicit in rejecting 
the idea that saving faith is the mere belief of the truth, they do 
not definitely decide in favour of any one precise view of the 
nature, object, and grounds of the fiducia, or trust, which they 
describe. When these matters came to be more exactly and 
elaborately discussed in the seventeenth century, distinctions were 
introduced and applied, which tended to throw much light upon 
the subject, and which now require to be known and kept in view, 
in order that we may form a right estimate of the true import 
even of the vague and indefinite statements of former writers. 
It may be proper to illustrate this point by a specimen or two, 
as it admits of extensive application. Le Blanc, Professor of 
Theology at Sedan to the French Protestant Church, of whom 
we shall have afterwards occasion to speak more fully, gives the 
following statements of the differences which have been exhibited 
among Protestant divines upon this subject : — 

" Hie observandum est, Jiduciam apud doctores Reforniatos pluribus modis 
sumi, adeoque plures eorum qui hac in parte diverse loquuntur, idem reapse 
inter se sentire ; alios vero qui videntur eodem modo loqui, revera tamen 
quoad sensum inter se discrepare." 

If this be so, it would require a great deal more of careful and 
patient research than Sir William ever gave to this or to any 
other theological subject, to enable him to thread his way through 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 131 

its intricacies, and to entitle him to speak with confidence of his 
success in doing so. Again, Le Blanc says, more particularly: — 

" Prsecipui vero scholse Reforinatse theologi de fiducia varie loquuntur, 
dum quidam dicunt fiduciam esse partem fidei primariaui, et proprium illius 
actum, alii vero istud negant et docent fiduciam esse quidem fidei prolem 
atque effectum, sed non tamen actum ejus proprie dictum ; ac prseterea 
fiducise nomine, alii quidem istud, alii vero aliud, intelligunt." 

He then mentions four different senses in which this fiducia, 
trust or confidence, has been understood by Protestant divines, 
the first two of which are thus described : — 

" Primum ergo, fiducise nomine intelligitur actus ille per quern in Deum 
recumbimus, illi innitimur, et ei adhseremus, tanquam fonti et authori 
salutis, ut vitam et salutem ab eo consequamur. Secundo, fiducia apud 
multos designat firmam persuasionem de gratia et venia a Deo impetrata et de 
nostra cum eo reconciliatione."* 

Turretine explains the distinctions applicable to this matter 
with his usual masterly ability, in this way : — 

"Diversitas quae inter orthodoxos occurrit oritur ex diversa acceptione 
fiducis&i quae trifariam potest sumi. 1. Pro fiduciali assensu seu persuasioue 
quae oritur ex judicio practico intellectus de veritate et bonitate promissionum 
evangelicarum, et de potentia, voluntate, ac fidelitate Dei promittentis. 2. 
Pro actu refugii et receptionis Christi, quo fidelis, cognita veritate et bonitate 
promissionum, ad Christum confugit, ilium recipit et amplectitur et in illius 
meritum unice recumbit. 3. Pro confidentia seu acquiescentia et tranquilli- 
tate animi quae oritur ex refugio animse ad Christum et ejus receptione. 
Primo et secundo significatu fiducia est de essentia fidei et bene a theologis 
dicitur ejus forma ; sed tertio, recte ab aliis non forma sed effectus fidei dici- 
tur, quia nascitur ex ea, non vero earn constituit."f 

We have made these quotations chiefly for the purpose of illus- 
trating the position, that as these distinctions were not present to 
the minds of the Keformers, but were the growth of later specula- 
tion, we should not attribute to them any one of these distinct and 
definite opinions, without specific evidence bearing upon the precise 
point to be proved, and should not allow ourselves to be carried 
away by the mere words, trust and confidence, certainty and assur- 
ance, without a full and deliberate consideration of the whole 
evidence bearing upon the meaning of the statements. The 



* Theses Sedanenses, de fidei justifi- I f Loc. xv. qu. x. s. 3, v., also qu. 
cantisnatura et essentia, pp. 213, 224. | xii. s. 4. 



132 \ THE EEFOEMEES [Essay III. 

statements may be so definite as to indicate what of the views 
that were subsequently developed were held by the parties under 
consideration, or they may not. The statements of the Catechisms 
of Geneva and Heidelberg are so expressed, as to convey the doc- 
trine that personal assurance is of the essence of saving faith ; the 
confessions of the Reformed churches do not in general teach this 
doctrine ; and the Homilies of the Church of England resemble 
more the confessions than the catechisms. Even if they were 
symbolical and authoritative, they would not make " assurance,'' 
in the precise and definite sense in which Sir William here uses 
the word, " a necessary tenet of ecclesiastical belief." 

Sir William's second proof of his position is the " sixth Lam- 
beth Article." The history of the Lambeth Articles affords an 
irrefragable proof that Calvinism was the generally received doc- 
trine of the great body of the highest authorities in the church 
and universities of England, and of the mass of the English clergy, 
in the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth and of the sixteenth 
century : while nothing is more certain and notorious than that 
they never received the sanction of the church in its public official 
character ; that they never were imposed by any authority, civil 
or ecclesiastical ; and that there is not a shadow of ground for 
alleging, that any Anglican clergyman is, or ever was, under any 
appearance of obligation to believe or teach anything contained 
in them, the sixth Article or any of the other eight. 

But even if the Lambeth Articles were symbolical and autho- 
ritative, they would not impose an obligation to teach the precise 
and definite doctrine which is the subject of Sir William's allega- 
tion. The sixth Article is in these words : — " Homo vere fidelis, id 
est, fide justificante prseditus, certus est plerophoria fidei, de remis- 
sione peccatorum suorum et salute sempiterna sua per Christum." 
It would manifestly require something much more definite than 
this, to tie down men to the maintenance of the position, that per- 
sonal assurance is necessarily included in saving faith and belongs 
to its essence. It simply says, "A true believer is certain with the 
assurance of faith." It does not say that every believer is so, at 
all times ; it defines nothing about the nature of the process by 
which the certainty is produced, or the ground on which it rests ; 
it specifies nothing of the relation subsisting between faith and 
assurance : and on these grounds it is totally unfit for the purpose 
for which Sir William referred to it. The truth is, that a man 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTKINE OF ASSURANCE. 133 

might honestly subscribe this Lambeth Article, without being 
thereby committed to more than the position which, as we have 
explained, formed the real subject of controversy between the 
Reformers and the Romanists, viz. that the believer may and 
should be assured of his forgiveness and salvation. 

Sir William, however, not only asserts that assurance, in the 
sense in which it has been so often explained, " still stands a 
necessary tenet of ecclesiastical belief " in the English Establish- 
ment, but he further says, that it does so " more articulately " in 
the Irish. He gives no other references than those we have 
examined, to the Homilies and the Lambeth Articles, and of course 
none bearing upon the alleged greater "articulateness" of the Irish 
Church in this matter. The truth probably was this: Sir William 
must have known that the Lambeth Articles are not, and never 
were, of any authority in the Church of England ; and he would 
scarcely have ventured to refer to them as establishing anything 
about the obligations of the clergy of that church. But he had 
probably read somewhere that the Lambeth Articles, though never 
imposed upon the Church of England, were, through Archbishop 
Usher's influence, sanctioned and adopted in the Church of 
Ireland, — a statement which is true in substance, though not 
strictly correct; and this was probably the whole of the knowledge 
on the ground of which he thought himself entitled to assert the 
greater articulateness of the Irish Church, and to refer to the 
sixth Lambeth Article. In " the Articles of Religion agreed upon 
by the archbishops and bishops, and the rest of the clergy of 
Ireland, in the Convocation holden at Dublin in the year of our 
Lord God 1615," the whole of the Lambeth Articles are embodied, 
though with some additions and verbal alterations. The subject 
of assurance is thus stated in No. 37, under the head "Justification 
and Faith:"— 

" By justifying faith, we understand not only the common belief of the 
articles of Christian religion, and a persuasion of the truth of God's word in 
general, but also a particular application of the gracious promises of the 
gospel to the comfort of our own souls ; whereby we lay hold on Christ with 
all His benefits, having an earnest trust and confidence in God, that He will 
be merciful to us for His only Son's sake. So that a true believer may be 
certain by the assurance of faith of the forgiveness of his sins, and of his 
everlasting salvation by Christ."* 



Hardwick's History of the Articles, Appendix, No. vi. pp. 347, 348. 



134 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. 

It is somewhat difficult to say whether this could, with truth, 
be said to be more " articulate" than the statements quoted from 
the " Homilies." The first sentence does seem to embody rather 
more of the tone and spirit of the Catechisms of Geneva and 
Heidelberg, though it is very far from being explicit in declaring 
their peculiar views upon this point. But then, in the second 
sentence, which is in substance a translation of the sixth Lambeth 
Article, there is an alteration which rather tells on the other side, 
— "may be certain," instead of " certus est" a change which con- 
firms the view above given of the real meaning of the Article, and 
brings it nearer to the great fundamental Protestant position, vere 
fldelis potest et debet certus esse. There is nothing, then, in these 
Irish Articles of 1615 to commit any one who may receive and 
adopt them, to the doctrine that assurance is of the essence of faith. 
Sir William, however, probably meant the greater articulateness, 
which he predicated of the Irish Church, to refer to the more 
formal ecclesiastical sanction given to these statements in the Irish 
than in the English Establishment ; and our answer to this is, 
that for two centuries past neither the Irish Church nor any of 
its bishops or clergymen, have furnished any ground whatever for 
the allegation, that they were under any obligation to teach the 
doctrine of assurance, beyond what is implied in subscription to 
the English Articles. There was a period, indeed, when the Irish 
Articles, and, of course, the Lambeth Articles, were invested with 
some authority in Ireland, but that period was brief, and has long 
since gone by. An investigation into the history and standing of 
the Irish Articles can now possess a merely historical value, and 
determines no question of present duty. It is curious and inte- 
resting, however; and we would refer those who desire full infor- 
mation upon this subject to Hardwick's " History of the Articles 
of Religion," — a book which, notwithstanding its strong anti-Cal- 
vimstic prejudices, we cannot but commend most highly for ability 
and learning and general fairness.* We must again request our 
readers to notice and remember what is suggested by the fact, 
that Sir William made this assertion about the Churches of Eng- 
land and Ireland. 

But perhaps Sir William's grandest display is to be found in 
the second paragraph of the passage on which we are commenting, 



C. viii. and Appendix vi. 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 135 

where he brings out the " series of the most curious contrasts " 
which " this dogma, with its fortunes, past and present, affords." 
He swells the number of these curious contrasts, by repeating 
what is really one and the same idea, in two or three different 
forms. He gives five "curious contrasts," but the first three turn 
upon a single point, and the substance of them may be embodied 
in one position, which, indeed, is the sum and substance of what Sir 
William is most anxious to establish, viz. that the whole of the Re- 
formed churches have not only abandoned the doctrine of assurance, 
the fundamental doctrine of the Reformation, but have all adopted 
the opposite Popish doctrine, which was taught by the Council of 
Trent when it condemned the doctrine of the Reformers. 

Before adverting to this leading position, we must notice his 
fourth and fifth specimens of " curious contrasts." He states 
them thus : — 

" Again, it is curious, that this, the most important variation in the faith 
of Protestants, — as, in fact, a gravitation of Protestantism back to Catholicity, 
— should have been overlooked, as, indeed, in his days undeveloped, by the 
keen-eyed author of ' The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches.' 
Finally, it is curious, that, though now fully developed, this central approxi- 
mation of Protestantism to Catholicity should not, as far as I know, have been 
signalized by any theologian, Protestant or Catholic." 

If this variation was " undeveloped ' • in Bossuet's time, it does 
not seem " curious " that it should have been overlooked by him, 
even though he was " keen-eyed ; " while we admit that it is 
" curious," if true, that " it should not have been signalized by any 
theologian, Protestant or Catholic," until Sir William Hamilton 
discovered and promulgated it. But the truth is, that this varia- 
tion — for there was a doctrinal variation upon this point, though 
certainly it was not of such magnitude as Sir William alleges — 
was developed in Bossuet's time, and was not overlooked by him, 
but was distinctly set forth, though not much enlarged upon, in 
his " History of the Variations." Indeed, all Sir William's asser- 
tions upon these points are wholly untrue. That this variation 
was not overlooked by Bossuet, is proved by the following extract 
from his " History of the Variations." * 

" Les ministres qui ont ecrit dans les derniers terns, et entr'autres, M. de 
Beaulieu (Le Blanc), que nous avous vu a Sedan, un des plus savans et des 
plus pacifique de tous les ministres, adoucissent le plus qu'ils peuvent le dogme 

* Liv. xiv. s. 90. 



136 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. 

de l'mamissibilite de la justice et meme celui de la certitude de salut: et deux 
raisons les y portent : la premiere est 1'eloignement qu'en ont eu ies Lutheriens, 
a qui ils veuient s'unir a quelque prix que ce soit : la seconde est Tabsurdite 
et l'impiete qu'on decouvre dans ces dogmes, pour peu qu'ils soient penetres. 
.... Toutes les fois que nos Reformes desavouent ces dogmes impies, louons- 
en Dieu, et, sans disputer da vantage, prions les settlement de considerer que le 
Saint Esprit ne pouvait pas etre en ceux qui les ont enseignes, et qui ont fait 
consister une grande partie de la Reforme dans de si indignes idees de la justice 
Chretienne." 

So far from this variation not having been signalized before, 
it actually formed one leading subject of a controversy that was 
carried on between theologians of distinguished eminence, both 
Protestant and Komanist, before the publication of Bossuet's 
"History of the Variations;" and as this topic not only conclu- 
sively disproves Sir William's assertions, but is fitted to throw 
light upon the general subject under consideration, we will give a 
brief notice of the controversy referred to. 

In 1665, Louis le Blanc, Lord of Beaulieu, Professor of 
Theology in the College of the French Protestant Church at 
Sedan, a man of great ability and learning, published "Theses 
Theologicse de Certitudine quam quis habere possit et debeat de 
sua coram Deo justificatione." In these Theses, he described it 
as a misrepresentation of Papists, to allege that Protestants held, 
among other things, that personal assurance was necessarily com- 
prehended in justifying faith and belonged to its essence ; and 
explained what he held to be the doctrine generally taught by 
Protestants upon this subject. He represented their doctrine as 
being substantially this, that believers can and should be assured 
of their being forgiven and being in a state of grace, and that 
the want of this assurance was faulty and sinful ; but that this 
assurance was not the proper act of justifying and saving faith, 
and did not belong to its essence, since faith might exist for a 
time without it ; that it was a result or consequence of faith, 
posterior to it in the order of nature, and frequently also of time ; 
that though this assurance might be called an act of faith, it was 
but a secondary and reflex, not a primary and direct act of faith ; 
and that while the certainty attaching to this personal assurance 
might be called a certainty of faith, it was so named in an im- 
proper sense, since it did not rest immediately and exclusively 
upon what was actually contained in God's word, but partly also 
upon a reflex act concerning ourselves. These are in substance 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 137 

the views in regard to faitli and assurance which are set forth 
in the Westminister Confession, prepared twenty years before ; 
and Le Blanc, without any parade of proofs or authorities, de- 
clared them to be then generally prevalent among Protestants. 
The prevalence of these views of course implied, and was seen 
and admitted to imply, a variation, or a departure from those held 
by the generality of the Keformers. 

About seven years after, in 1672, the famous Antony Arnauld, 
Doctor of the Sorbonne, the friend and associate of Pascal and 
Nicole, published his work entitled, " Le Renversement de la 
Morale de Jesus Christ, par les Erreurs des Calvinistes touchant 
la Justification ;" and as he meant to make the doctrine of assur- 
ance play an important part in proving that the Calvinists over- 
turn the morality of Jesus Christ, he adduced at length* the 
evidence that Calvinists teach that " every believer is assured 
with the certainty of divine faith of his own justification and 
salvation ;" andf he gives "a refutation of a professor of Sedan, 
who had abandoned the common sentiments of his sect, concern- 
ing the certainty of divine faith, which they think that every 
believer has of his justification and salvation." Arnauld's evi- 
dence in support of the ascription of this opinion to Protestants 
is derived chiefly from the writers of the sixteenth century, and 
terminates with the Synod of Dort in 1618, which, he alleges, 
sanctioned it ; and as Le Blanc in his Theses had not produced 
any authority, Arnauld, in refuting him, just referred to the evi- 
dence he had already adduced. In 1674, Le Blanc published 
" Theses Theologicse de fidei justificantis natura et essentia, in 
quibus varise Protestantium sentential referuntur et expenduntur, 
et breviter refelluntur quse super ea re quidam liber recens Scrip- 
tori harum Thesium imputat." These Theses, as well as the 
former ones, were afterwards embodied in his great work com- 
monly called " Theses Sedanenses," of which the third edition 
was published at London in 1683. In these Theses concerning 
the nature and essence of justifying faith, he goes very fully into 
the whole subject, examines the authorities bearing upon it, and 
defends himself from the charges which Arnauld, in his " Ren- 
versement," had brought against him, of abandoning the common 
views of Protestants, and of concealing and misrepresenting their 



* Liv. ix. c. iii. and iv. f Liv. x. c. iv. 



138 THE REFORMERS LEssay III 

true doctrines. Le Blanc, of course, did not deny that there had 
been many eminent Protestant divines who taught that personal 
assurance was necessarily included in saving faith. But he con- 
tended and proved, that from the time of the Reformation down- 
wards, there had always been some eminent Protestant writers 
who had taken a broader and more correct view of the nature of 
saving faith and of the relation between it and assurance, — that 
in recent times the number of divines who held this view had 
•been progressively increasing, — that nearly thirty years before 
this it had obtained a great triumph, by being distinctly set forth 
in the Westminster Confession, whose sentiments upon this point 
had been generally approved of by Protestant writers ; and that, 
on all these grounds, Arnauld and the Papists were acting un- 
warrantably in asserting that the opposite view was that which 
had always been and still was held by Protestants. He claims in 
support of his views the concurrence of Zanchius, Peter Martyr, 
Musculus, Perkins, Bishop Davenant, and the other English 
divines who attended the Synod of Dort, Ames, Du Moulin, 
WalaBus, Wittichius, Mestrezat, etc. He expresses his concur- 
rence in the statements of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 
and repeatedly refers to it # in disproof of the allegation of the 
Romanists, that opposite views had up till that time been gene- 
rally maintained among Protestants. Le Blanc admitted that, 
in the earlier period, views different from his and from those 
of the Westminster Confession, were more generally prevalent ; 
but he contended that, in later times, matters had changed, and 
the balance had turned to the other side. He, of course, did 
not deny that there had been a variation here in the history of 
Protestant doctrine, though he did not think the change which 
had been brought about was one of great intrinsic importance, 
and maintained that, from the beginning, there had been some 
Protestants who held the views which had ultimately gained the 
ascendency. 

This elaborate dissertation of Le Blanc was not only approved 
of in general by Protestant divines, but it convinced an eminent 
Romish theologian of that period, Le Fevre, a doctor of theology 
of the Faculty of Paris, that Arnauld had misrepresented Protes- 
tants, in ascribing to them generally the doctrine of assurance. He 



* Pp. 211, 216, 221, 222, 229. 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 139 

expressed this opinion in a work written against Protestantism ; 
and this again called forth the redoubtable Jansenist, who pub- 
lished, in 1682, " Le Calvinisme Convaincu de nouveau de Dogmes 
Impies contre ce qu'en on ecrit, M. Le Fevre, etc., et M. Le 
Blanc," etc. In this work Arnauld went over the ground again 
without throwing much additional light upon it, or shaking any of 
Le Blanc's main positions. 

In the meantime a new combatant had entered the field. 
This was the famous Peter Jurieu, a man of singular talents and 
activity, who had formerly been professor at Sedan. In 1675 he 
published his " Apologie pour la Morale des Reformes, ou Defense 
de leur doctrine touchant la Justification, la perseverance des vrais 
saints, et la certitude que chaque fidele peut et doit avoir de son 
salut," in reply to Arnauld' s " Renversement." This work Claude, 
the most distinguished defender of Protestantism in France, pro- 
nounced to be " one of the finest books that had appeared since 
the Reformation." The first two books of it treat of justification 
and perseverance, and the third and last of certitude or assurance. 
He takes very much the same ground as Le Blanc, denying that 
Arnauld was entitled to charge upon Protestants in general the 
doctrine that assurance is of the essence of faith, though admitting 
that this doctrine was extensively taught among them in the six- 
teenth century. He adduces a portion of the evidence of this, 
referring to Le Blanc's Theses for additional testimonies, and 
shows very ably and ingeniously, that neither the earlier nor the 
later doctrine was chargeable with the odious consequences which 
Arnauld had laboured to fasten upon them. He takes some pains 
to bring out the difference between the belief men have in articles 
of faith, and the assurance they have of their own forgiveness, and 
to show that men might doubt about their salvation without ceas- 
ing to be true believers. He exposes very ably and conclusively 
the futility of the attempt of Arnauld to draw an argument in 
favour of Popery from the concessions made by Le Blanc and 
others, as to the variations in the doctrine of Protestants, and even 
an approximation again in some minor doctrinal matters to the 
Church of Rome ; and points out the folly of making so much 
ado about differences of so little intrinsic importance as those 
which had been exhibited, or might still subsist, among Protestants 
on the subject of assurance. 

Le Blanc and Jurieu were both men of very fine talents and 



140 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. 

of extensive learning. Both have rendered important services to 
the cause of truth, and both have also done it some injury. Le 
Blanc had a great desire to reconcile the differences of contending 
sects and parties, and laboured to show that the points of difference 
among them, when calmly and deliberately examined, were not of 
great importance, and resolved many of them into mere logo- 
machies. He applied this principle to some of the topics contro- 
verted between Protestants and Papists, and not merely to topics 
so unimportant, comparatively, as assurance, but even to some 
branches of the great doctrine of justification, — a circumstance 
of which Nicole has skilfully availed himself in his work entitled, 
"Prejuges Legitimes contre les Calvinistes." As Le Blanc 
brought extensive theological learning, and a singularly ingenious 
and discriminating mind, to bear upon this subject, his " Theses 
Sedanenses" must be regarded as a dangerous book for the young 
student of theology, who might be in danger of being misled by 
it into an under-estimate of the importance of having clear views 
and definite convictions upon many topics usually discussed in 
polemic divinity ; while it is certainly a work of the very highest 
value to the more mature theologian. 

Jurieu is probably very much under-estimated by those whose 
knowledge of him has been derived, not from the perusal of his 
own writings, but from other sources. His reputation has suffered 
greatly in consequence of his having quarrelled with Bayle, who, 
after having formerly praised him and his writings in the highest 
terms, pilloried him through the whole of his Dictionary, making 
frequent occasions for assaulting him. Jurieu had some qualities 
which laid him open to such assaults. With great ability and 
penetration, and great mental energy and activity, he had a rash- 
ness and recklessness about him that often led him into scrapes, 
and afforded many a handle to his enemies, — to personal enemies, 
as Bayle, — or to opponents in controversy, as Bossuet. He threw 
himself with such eagerness into every one of the many contro- 
versies in which he engaged, that he seemed for the time to see 
everything through that medium, appeared to contend for victory 
quite as much as for truth, and was ever anxious to turn every- 
thing to the account of the present controversial occasion. All 
this produced sometimes a carelessness and rashness both in the 
statement of facts and in the employment of arguments, which his 
friends could not defend, and which his enemies skilfully improved. 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 141 

This was just the kind of man whom Bayle was peculiarly qualified 
to expose ; and he has done his best to turn his opportunities to 
good account. But all who are acquainted with Jurieu's works, 
know that he was a man of very fine powers, that he has rendered 
very valuable services to truth in the discussion of some important 
questions, and has inflicted some deadly wounds even upon such 
opponents as Bossuet, Arnauld, and Nicole. Though his repu- 
tation has been damaged by Bayle's Dictionary, yet the mischief 
has been in some measure repaired by a very full, elaborate, and 
interesting life, in which justice is done him, in Chauffepie's 
Supplement to Bayle.* 

Arnauld, Le Blanc, and Jurieu, are all first-class names in 
theological literature. Their labours ought to have been known 
to a man of Sir William's pretensions ; and yet we have seen that 
he has asserted, that a topic which formed a subject of formal and 
lengthened controversy between them, was unnoticed and unknown 
until it was "signalized" by himself. We could easily prove that 
this variation has been "signalized" by many theologians. But it 
is unnecessary to dwell upon this point. We shall quote one speci- 
men, as it embodies at the same time a good summary of the chief 
reasons that tended to produce the change. It is taken from a 
common work of an eminent divine, published in the latter part 
of the seventeenth century, " Marckii Compendium Theologia3."f 

"Non diffitendum interim, de hac ipsa, fiduciali applicatione diversum sen- 
tire quoque nostros. Dum antiquiores juxta catachesim nostram faciunt hunc 
Actum fidei essentialem, ad justificationem et salutem necessarium, sed 
non absque antecedenti amplexu et connexa resipiscentia concipiendum ; 
Recentiores vero plures volunt potius esse earn fidei ipsius et justificationis 
consequens, quod abesse possit, fide et salute manente, 1. Turn ob multorum 
vere Christum apprebendentium perpetuas dubitationes ; 2. Turn ad vitandas 
magis Pontificiorum, Arminianorum, et schismaticorum stropbas, qui vel 
homines ad securitatem hoc fidei actu duci, vel obligari ad falsum credendum 
cum remissio fidem sequatur, vel pro omnibus juxta hoc officium credendi 
mortuum esse Christum, clamant ; 3. Tnm denique, quod haec fiducia magis 
Dei beneficium speciale paucioribus proprium, quam officium commune sit." 

We should now proceed to the more formal consideration of 
the leading position which, as we have seen, forms the substance 
of Sir William's first three "curious contrasts," — viz. that the 
whole of the Reformed churches have not only abandoned the 



Yol. iii. f C. xxii. sec. 23. 



142 THE KEFOEMEES [Essay III. 

doctrine of assurance, the fundamental doctrine of the Reforma- 
tion, but have all adopted the Popish doctrine which was taught 
by the Council of Trent, when it condemned the doctrine of the 
Reformers. But we are prevented from going so fully into the 
discussion of this position as we would have liked to have done, 
and had collected materials for doing. We have now only space 
for a few hints. 

Sir William calls the doctrine of assurance — that is, of course, 
the doctrine that assurance of personal salvation is necessarily 
included in saving faith — the " fundamental principle of all the 
churches of the Reformation," "the common and differential," 
" the primary and peculiar," doctrine of the Reformation. Some 
of the Reformers made strong and exaggerated statements about 
the importance of their peculiar opinions upon this point ; and 
Nicole, and other old Popish controversialists, in dealing, as with 
a known and familiar thing, with that variation, which was un- 
known to all theologians until Sir William " signalized " it, have 
endeavoured to show that a change upon a topic so important 
should have led men to return to the Church of Rome. Yet 
neither Reformers nor Romanists, even in the heat of controversy, 
have ever put forth such extravagant exaggerations upon this point 
as those we have quoted from Sir William. To represent the 
doctrine of assurance as "the fundamental principle of all the 
churches of the Reformation," carries absurdity upon the face 
of it. From the very nature of the case, no doctrine upon 
such a subject could be the fundamental principle of the Re- 
formed churches. If the Reformers had been contented, as they 
should have been, with asserting the general position that be- 
lievers can and should be assured of their own salvation, and if 
the Romanists had ventured to meet this general position with a 
direct and unqualified negative, even in that case no sound- 
minded man, whatever he might have been tempted to say in the 
heat of controversy, could have deliberately regarded this differ- 
ence as fundamental. But while this was really and practically 
the controversy between them, yet, as we have explained, the 
formal or technical ground of contention was reduced within still 
narrower limits,— the Papists professing to deny the doctrine of- 
their opponents only with this explanation, that by assurance they 
meant the infallible certainty of divine faith, by which men be- 
lieved the great doctrines of religion; and many of the Reformers, 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 143 

injudiciously and incautiously accepting this explanation, and 
bringing forward the notion that personal assurance is necessarily 
included in saving faith, as an argument in support of it. The 
controversy thus turned in form upon the kind or measure of the 
certainty attaching to men's convictions on the subject of their 
own state and prospects, and the grounds on which the actual 
certainty contended for might be established. It is impossible 
that any particular doctrine upon such points as these could " have 
been constituted into the fundamental principle of all the churches 
of the Eeformation;" and therefore Sir William's position might 
be safely and reasonably rejected, even by those who have no great 
knowledge of these matters. 

Sir William plainly asserts, that a precise and definite doctrine 
upon this subject was, in opposition to the Reformers, laid down 
by the Council of Trent, and that this Popish doctrine has now 
been adopted by all the Protestant churches. But this notion, 
though not altogether destitute of an apparent plausibility, has no 
real foundation in truth. It is no doubt true that in so far as 
there has been a deviation from the views generally held by the 
Reformers, it has proceeded in a direction which tends to diminish 
the differences between Protestants and Papists. But, indeed, it 
can scarcely be said with truth, that either the Reformed churches 
or the Church of Rome were formally and officially committed to 
any very definite doctrine upon this subject. There is nothing, 
as we have seen, precise and definite upon this topic in the con- 
fessions of the Reformed churches. There is nothing so definite 
in any of the Calvinistic confessions of the sixteenth century, in 
favour of assurance being of the essence of saving faith, as there 
is in the Westminster Confession on the other side. With respect 
to the deliverances of the Council of Trent upon this subject, we 
have to remark, 1st, That they condemned several positions which 
had not been laid down by the Reformed churches, but merely 
put forth by individual Reformers, and which Protestants, both at 
the time and since, have thought untenable and exaggerated ; 2d, 
That a difference of opinion existed in the council itself, and that 
this prevented their giving any very definite, positive deliverance. 
Catharinus, one of the most eminent divines of that period, 
maintained in the council views upon the subject of assurance 
substantially the same as those held by the generality of the 
Reformers ; he continued to hold these views ; and after all the 



144 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. 

deliverances of the council had been passed, he maintained that 
none of his positions had been condemned, and that he was still at 
liberty to profess them. Indeed, while the whole tone and spirit 
of the deliverances of the council upon this subject is adverse to 
the views of the Reformers, its chief formal deliverance is just 
this, "Nullus scire valet certitudine fidei, cui non potest subesse 
falsum, se gratiam Dei esse consecutum ; " * where the matter is 
thrown back very much upon the point, that the certainty claimed 
is the certainty of faith, and where some additional materials for 
metaphysical speculation are provided, by the class we have put 
in italics. 

The view we have given of these points, in their bearing upon 
the state of the question, is fully confirmed by what we find in 
Cardinal Bellarmine when treating of this topic.f After admitting 
the existence of different opinions on the subject in the Council of 
Trent and in the Church of Rome, he gives this as the doctrine 
held by the great body of Romish theologians in opposition to the 
errors both of Protestants and Romanists, " Non posse homines 
in hac vita habere certitudinem fidei de sua justitia, iis exceptis 
quibus Deus speciali revelatione hoc indicare dignatur;" and in 
giving more formally the state of the question, he puts it in this 
way, " Utrum debeat aut possit aliquis sine speciali revelatione, 
certus esse certitudine fidei divinae, cui nullo modo potest subesse 
falsum, sibi remissa esse peccata." Here we see the controversialist 
stands intrenched behind the "certitudo fidei divinae cui nullo 
modo," etc., and calls upon his opponent to prove that the certitude 
or assurance to which he lays claim, is possessed of such qualities, 
and is based upon such grounds, as these phrases are understood to 
indicate. But while the great Popish controversialist takes care 
at first to intrench himself behind these safeguards, he after- 
wards brings out somewhat more fully and freely, though still 
not without precaution, what he and Romish writers in general 
have inculcated upon this point. { He lays down and under- 
takes to prove the four following positions : — " 1. Non posse 
haberi certitudinem fidei de propria justitia," — a denial of the 
Protestant "potest;" 3. "Neminem teneri ad illam habendam 
etiamsi forte posset haberi," — a denial of the Protestant "debet;" 
3. " Non expedire ut ordinarie habeatur ; " 4. " Reipsa non haberi 



vi. c. ix. f De Justific. lib. iii. c. ii. et iii. 1 0- viii. 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 145 

nisi a paucis, quibus a Deo specialiter justificatio propria reve- 
latur." These positions formed then, and in substance they form 
still, the real points of divergence between Protestants and Papists 
upon the subject of assurance. The technicalities of the controversy 
are somewhat altered, while its substance remains the same. The 
grand question still is, as it has always been, Is it practicable, 
obligatory, and expedient, that believers should be assured of their 
justification and salvation ? Upon this question the Reformed 
churches have always maintained, and still maintain, the affirma- 
tive ; while the Romanists, for obvious reasons, have always taken 
the other side. Modern Protestants, as the result of a more careful, 
deliberate, and unembarrassed examination of the subject than 
the Reformers were able to give to it, have become indifferent 
about the question, whether this assurance should be called the 
certainty of faith, or have plainly admitted that this designation 
was an improper one ; and they have modified also an extreme 
view about the precise relation subsisting between assurance and 
saving faith, — a view which seems to have been suggested by a 
desire to establish the warrantableness of this designation. This 
is really the sum and substance of the variation, — of the change 
which has taken place. 

We are confident that no one who is competently acquainted 
with this subject, and who surveys the history of the discussions 
regarding it with calmness and deliberation, can fail to see that 
this is the true state of the case. And if this, or anything like 
this, be indeed the true state of the case, what an extraordinary 
misrepresentation must be the view given of the matter by Sir 
William Hamilton ! His view is to be exposed and overthrown 
by establishing these two positions : — 1st, That, from the nature 
of the case, no doctrine upon the subject of assurance could have 
been the fundamental principle of the Reformers ; and 2d, That 
the difference between the Reformers and the generality of modern 
Protestant divines is not one of fundamental importance, even 
when regarded merely in its relation to this non-fundamental 
subject, and of course sinks into insignificance when viewed in its 
relation to the general system of Protestant doctrine. 

Sir William seems to have been half conscious of this ; and 
therefore he makes an attempt, in conclusion, to involve the great 
Protestant doctrine of justification in one common ruin with the 
comparatively small doctrine of assurance. He represents it as a 

VOL. I. 10 



146 THE KEFORMERS [Essay III. 

consequence of the change which he alleges has taken place in the 
views of Protestants in regard to assurance, that " the Protestant 
sy mbol (< Fides sola justificat, — Faith alone justifies'), though now 
eviscerated of its real import, and now only manifesting an unim- 
portant difference of expression, is still supposed to mark the dis- 
crimination of the two religious denominations. For both agree 
that the three heavenly virtues must all concur to salvation, and 
they only differ whether faith, as a word, does or does not involve 
hope and charity." This would be the most dangerous of all Sir 
William's misrepresentations, were it not rendered innocuous by 
its extravagance. Even if the deviation from the views of the 
Reformers, and the return to Popish notions upon the subject of 
assurance, had been as great as Sir William represents it, this 
would not have affected the differences between Protestants and 
Romanists upon anything really involved in the doctrine of justi- 
fication. Sir William's statement, though applied only to the 
doctrine that faith alone justifies, seems fitted and intended to 
convey the impression, that the whole Protestant doctrine of justi- 
fication has been exploded and abandoned ; and, therefore, the 
first remark we have to make upon it is this, — that there are some 
important differences between Protestants and Romanists on the 
subject of justification, which are not directly touched even by the 
position, that faith alone justifies. We refer, of course, to the 
vitally important questions, 1st, as to the meaning and import ; 
and 2d, as to the cause, or ground, or foundation, of justification. 
Even though the doctrine that faith alone justifies were " evisce- 
rated," Protestants might and should maintain their whole contro- 
versy with Romanists upon these fundamental points. We remark, 
in the second place, that all that is important in the Protestant 
doctrine, as comprehended under the head that faith alone justifies, 
is untouched by any change that has taken or could take place 
in regard to assurance. The two main questions usually discussed 
between Protestants and Romanists under this head are these : — 
1st, Is there anything else in men themselves which stands in the 
same relation to justification as faith does ?— Protestants answering 
this question in the negative, and Papists contending that there 
are six other virtues, as they call them, including, of course, hope 
and charity, which stand in the very same relation to justification. 
Protestants admitted that all these virtues do and must exist in 
justified men, and might thus, in a sense, be said, to use Sir 



Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 147 

William's phrase, " to concur to salvation;" but they wholly 
denied that they have any such bearing as faith has upon the 
justification of a sinner. 2d, In what capacity or respect is it 
that faith justifies ? Is it as an instrument, or as a condition, or 
as a meritorious cause ! Surely it is quite plain, that, even if a 
man had come to believe all that is taught by the Council of 
Trent upon the subject of assurance, he might still, without any 
inconsistency, maintain all the doctrines of the Reformers upon 
these important points. 

Sir William adverts to the fact, that the deviation from the 
views of the Reformers upon the subject of assurance, which he 
represents as an abandonment of " the fundamental principle of 
all the Reformed churches," is embodied in the Westminster Con- 
fession ; and yet there can be no doubt that the whole doctrine of 
the Reformers upon the subject of justification is set forth with 
most admirable fulness and precision in the eleventh chapter of 
that document, while no ingenuity, however great, could devise 
even a plausible pretence for alleging that there is any inconsistency 
in this. 

We have some apprehension that the controversial spirit is 
rising and swelling in our breast, and therefore we abstain from 
making any reflections upon the extraordinary inaccuracies which 
we have considered it our duty to unfold. But we would like 
to attempt something in the way of expounding and inculcating 
the great truth taught in Scripture, and set forth in the West- 
minster Confession, upon the subject of assurance. That it is 
practicable, obligatory, and expedient, that believers should be 
assured of their justification and salvation, was, not certainly, 
" the fundamental principle of all the Reformed churches," but 
the fundamental principle of the teaching of the Reformed 
churches on the subject of assurance. It is fully and clearly 
declared in the Westminster Confession. It has been held pro- 
fessedly by the whole body of Calvinistic divines, both before and 
since the variation which Sir William has signalized. And yet we 
fear it has at all times been too much neglected, both theoretically 
and practically, viewed both as declaring a truth and enforcing a 
duty. We believe that the prevailing practical disregard of the 
privilege and the duty of having assurance, is, to no inconsiderable 
extent, at once the cause and the effect of the low state of vital re- 
ligion amongst us — one main reason why there is so little of real 



148 REFORMERS AND DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. [Essay III. 

communion with God as our reconciled Father, and so little of real, 
hearty devotedness to His cause and service. Some sense of the 
sin and danger of neglecting this subject occasionally arises in 
men's minds, and is, from time to time, pressed upon the notice 
of the church ; but in many cases such attempts have only led to 
controversial discussions, and have failed in producing any bene- 
ficial practical results. It is not easy to keep the exact high road 
of truth ; and men, filled with some one important idea or object, 
are very apt to run into exaggerations and extremes. Upon no 
subject has this been more conspicuously the case than on that 
of assurance ; partly, perhaps, because of the influence of Luther, 
Calvin, and their associates. It has happened repeatedly in the 
history of the church, that pious and zealous men, impressed with 
the importance of getting a larger share of attention to the subject 
of assurance, have been led into the adoption of untenable and 
erroneous positions concerning it. Then the champions of ortho- 
doxy have buckled on their armour, and have demonstrated by 
irrefragable logic, that these positions are characterized by, it may 
be, confusion, inconsistency, and error; and then men, satisfied 
upon this point, settle down again upon their lees, and think no 
more of the importance of coming to a decisive adjustment upon 
the question as to what is their present relation to God, and what 
are their future prospects. This is the abuse, not the use of 
controversy. The uses of theological controversy are, to expose 
error, and to produce and diffuse clear and correct opinions upon 
all points of doctrine. It is the church's imperative duty to aim 
at these objects, and controversy seems to be as indispensable 
with a view to the second as to the first of them. But it is an 
evil and an abuse, when the exposure of error is made to serve as 
a substitute for the realization and application of what is admitted 
to be true. This has repeatedly, in the history of the church, 
taken place in regard to the subject of assurance ; and this result, 
again, has, we are persuaded, been productive of injurious conse- 
quences to the interests of true religion, and tended to keep the 
church at a low point in the scale of devotedness and efficiency. 



MELANCTHON 



THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 



These are two great works, of permanent value, and must be 
regarded as most important accessions to the theological literature 
of the present age. They are, indeed, almost wholly republications 
of books which have been in existence for nearly three centuries. 
But many of the books of which they are composed were so scarce 
as to be practically inaccessible, and they are now brought within 
the reach of all, and provided fully with every necessary literary 
apparatus. Bretschneider of Gotha started the idea of editing and 
publishing a complete Corpus Reformatorum, and began with 
putting forth, in 1834, the first volume of the whole writings of 
Melancthon. The work proceeded very slowly, one volume only 
being usually published annually. Bretschneider died during its 
progress, and the work has very recently been brought to a close 
under the superintendence of Bindseil, who is professor of philo- 
sophy and librarian at Halle, The last volume, the twenty-eighth, 
was just ready in time to admit of its being deposited in the 
foundation-stone of the pedestal of a brazen statue of Melancthon, 
erected at Wittemberg on the 19th of April last, the tricentenary 
anniversary of his death. We do not know whether the works of 
any more of the Reformers are to be brought out in the same style, 



* British and Foreign Evangelical 
Review, Jan. 1861. 
Philippi Melanthonis Opera qu^; 

SUPERSUXT OMNIA. 18ol-1860. 



The Works of the Parker Society. 
1811-1855. 



150 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

and with similar completeness and apparatus. It would certainly 
be an inestimable service to theological literature to produce such 
an edition of the whole works of the other leading Reformers. 
But the length of time that has been occupied with the publication 
of Melancthon is somewhat discouraging. It is a great boon, 
however, to have given us such an edition of the whole works of 
the " Preceptor of Germany." 

The Parker Society was instituted in 1840, " for the publica- 
tion of the works of the fathers and early writers of the Reformed 
English Church ;" and in the course of fourteen years gave to the 
world fifty-five volumes of most interesting and valuable matter, 
including a most important collection of Letters not before 
published, which had been written by the English Reformers to 
their continental correspondents, and have been preserved in 
different libraries, but especially in that of Zurich. The Parker 
Society was instituted, and its proceedings were conducted, under 
the influence of decidedly anti-Tractarian views. It was intended 
to bring out the predominance of the doctrinal and evangelical 
element, as opposed to the sacramental, the hierarchic, and the 
ritualistic, among the founders of the Church of England, — the 
thoroughly anti-Popish character of the whole position they 
assumed, — their full sympathy in spirit and feeling, and their 
substantial identity in opinion, with the continental Reformers ; 
in short, to make it palpable that the Church of England, as 
settled in the time of Edward and Elizabeth, was very different, 
in the most important respects, from what it was made by Charles 
and Laud, and from what the Tractarians have again attempted 
to make it. The works of the Parker Society contain a great 
storehouse of matter of the highest value and importance, viewed 
both historically and theologically. As a whole, they thoroughly 
establish the true historical position of the Church of England, as 
settled by its fathers and founders ; and at the same time furnish 
materials amply sufficient to prove, that the great leading anti- 
Popish, anti-Tractarian, evangelical features of its constitution, 
in so far as they agreed with those of the continental Reformed 
churches, are truly scriptural and primitive. 

A similar work was attempted, and to a considerable extent 
executed, in the early part of this century, by the Rev. Legh 
Richmond, whose pastoral labours and popular writings were so 
largely blessed. When it was attempted to put down the piety 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 151 

and orthodoxy that grew up so remarkably in the Church of 
England in the end of the last and the beginning of the present 
century, by the allegation, that those who held evangelical and 
Calvinistic views might indeed be Methodists and Dissenters, bat 
could not be regarded as true Churchmen, it was thought proper 
to bring out the evidence, that the fathers and founders of the 
Church of England, — the great body of the most influential divines 
of that church during the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth, — not 
only held what are commonly reckoned evangelical views con-' 
cerning the doctrines of grace, but were chiefly decided, though 
moderate, Calvinists. With this view Mr Richmond undertook, 
with the assistance of some friends, to edit a republication of 
" The Fathers of the English Church." This work was published 
in portions from 1807 to 1812, it was completed in eight volumes, 
and exerted an extensive and wholesome influence. It is, of 
course, greatly inferior in extent and completeness, and in its 
literary apparatus, to the works of the Parker Society. But there 
is one point in which it has the advantage of its successor, viz. in 
going back to the men who suffered for their Protestantism in the 
reign of Henry VIII. The Parker Society restricted itself, with 
the exception of Tyndale, to works published after the accession 
of Edward; whereas Richmond's " Fathers of the English Church" 
gives us the works of Frith, Barnes, Lancelot, Ridley, and others, 
who were confessors or martyrs under Henry, who are on every 
account deserving of the highest respect and esteem, and who have 
left behind them unequivocal evidence that they had embraced 
the whole substance of the theological views of Augustine and 
Calvin. 

The Parker Society, by its' invaluable series of publications, 
may be said to have finally established, beyond the possibility of 
answer, the true theological views and position of the great body 
of the fathers and founders of the Church of England ; to have 
proved conclusively, that nearly all the Anglican Protestant divines 
who flourished during the reign of Edward and Elizabeth were, 
like the Reformers of the continent, Calvinistic in their doctrinal 
views, and that they did not reckon of much importance, or defend 
confidently and on high grounds, the points on which the Church 
of England differed, as to government and worship, from the con- 
tinental churches. Men who have been trained up in the denial 
of these positions may continue to adhere to their old prejudices ; 



152 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV 

but we scarcely think it possible that another generation can grow 
up in the disbelief of them, unless great care be taken to shut out 
everything like intelligent, independent, and candid investigation. 

In the discussions which have taken place in regard to the 
theological views that prevailed among the founders of the Church 
of England, and might therefore be supposed to be embodied in 
her public symbols, Melancthon has usually had much prominence 
assigned to him, and has been turned to great account, especially 
by those who were anxious to disprove the opinion upon this sub- 
ject which we have represented as now fully established. He has 
been employed, as a sort of medium of probation, for showing that 
the founders of the Church of England were not Calvinists. It 
has been strenuously contended, that the men who prepared and 
established the Anglican symbols had adopted the theological views 
of Melancthon, and that his views were opposed to those of Calvin 
and the other Reformers. It is in this way that the republica- 
tion of Melancthon' s works, and the series of works by the Parkei 
Society, are historically connected with each other ; so that wc 
must take them both into account in seeking to form a right 
estimate of the original theology of the Church of England, and 
especially of its accordance with that of the generality of the Re- 
formers. Before attempting some explanation of this matter, it 
may be proper to point out somewhat fully the position, influence, 
and tendencies of Melancthon, in a theological point of view. 

For nearly the whole of Luther's public life, Melancthon, who 
was one of his colleagues in the University of Wittemberg, was 
closely and intimately associated with him in all his labours, and 
undoubtedly rendered important services to the cause of the Refor- 
mation and the interests of Protestant truth. It would be easy 
enough to point out how much benefit resulted to the church, 
from the influence upon each other, and upon their common cause, 
of these two men, acting together with the utmost harmony during 
a long period, though so strikingly different from each other both 
in talents and character, both in gifts and graces. But we cannot 
dwell upon this. Melancthon' s actions and writings do not afford 
nearly such abundant materials as Luther's do, that furnish a 
handle to his enemies to depreciate his character; though his 
friends, that is, the friends of the Reformation, have been per- 
haps more perplexed as to the way in which they ought to estimate 
and represent it. In many respects he was a perfect contrast to 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 153 

Luther. He had none of Luther's vehemence and impetuosity of 
temperament, none of his presumption and self-confidence. He 
had less, not only than Luther, but than the generality of men, 
of irritability and pugnacity ; and on all these accounts he both 
incurred less personal enmity, and has left scarcely any materials 
in the way of violent invective, intemperate language, rash and 
exaggerated statements, to be collected by his enemies, and paraded 
to the injury of his character. There is scarcely anything that 
gives so much advantage to a man's enemies as the use of intem- 
perate language, or that affords more ready and more plausible 
materials for exciting a prejudice against him. And as Melanc- 
thon did not indulge in this practice, his reputation has not been 
exposed to the same rude assaults which have been so often directed 
against Luther's. 

A recent Popish publication says that all the Reformers, " with 
perhaps the exception of Melancthon, were coarse hypocrites;"' 
while the fact is, that there are much more plausible grounds for 
charging Melancthon with hypocrisy than any one of them, — if 
by that be meant keeping back his real opinions, and acting as if 
they were different from what they were. 

The character of Melancthon is one which it is indeed very diffi- 
cult to describe with fairness and accuracy ; and, with the materials 
we possess, it would be an easy matter for an ingenious person to 
draw two different sketches of him, which might represent him in 
very different lights, and which yet might both possess not only plau- 
sibility, but a considerable portion of truth. Bossuet has devoted 
the fifth book of his " History of the Variations " to Melancthon, 
and has exerted his great skill and ingenuity in exaggerating and 
aggravating all his weaknesses and infirmities, in putting the worst 
construction upon all his shortcomings in word and deed, and thus 
producing the most unfavourable impression of his character and 
motives ; and the various features which he has introduced into the 
picture, can be all supported by a certain amount of plausible 
evidence. On the other hand, Scott, in his very valuable con- 
tinuation of " Milner," * gives his general opinion of Melancthon 
in the following words : — " On the whole, after reading nearly 
two thousand of his letters and numerous others of his papers and 
writings, I confess that I cannot but regard him as one of the 



* Vol. ii. p. 150. 



154 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

loveliest specimens of the grace of God ever exhibited in our fallen 
nature." And though this may surely be regarded as somewhat 
of an exaggerated statement, yet we have no doubt that Scott has 
given such explanations of what seems at first sight most objec- 
tionable in Melancthon's public conduct, especially in regard to 
the Interim, and has produced such abundant and satisfactory 
materials in proof of his personal excellence, as to afford conclu- 
sive evidence to any person of candour and impartiality, that he 
was not only a man of genuine piety and decided Christian prin- 
ciple, but that he was eminently distinguished by the unusual 
degree in which he possessed and exhibited some, though certainly 
not all, of the graces of the Christian character. 

But our object is not to settle what Melancthon's character 
was, or to describe it and show it forth. It is rather to indicate 
some of the lessons which a survey of his character and history 
may be fitted to suggest to students of theology and to ministers 
of the gospel. And this, were it to be done at length and in detail, 
would be a task of considerable difficulty. It brings us at once 
into contact with what is by far the most serious and important 
difficulty, in surveying the history of the church and of theological 
discussions, viz. hitting the right medium in judging of men and 
actions, between bigotry on the one hand and latitudinarianism on 
the other ; between sanctioning, on the one side, a contentious and 
pugnacious spirit, leading men unnecessarily to disturb the peace 
of the church by fighting for points which are unimportant in 
themselves, which divide the friends of Christ's cause, and which 
there may be no very obvious and urgent call to contend for in 
existing circumstances ; and sanctioning, on the other, the selfish 
and cowardly disposition, combined with an inadequate sense of 
the claims of truth, which so often leads men to decline contending 
when contending is a duty even at all hazards, under pretence that 
the matters in dispute are unimportant. Both tendencies have 
been very fully exhibited in the history of the church, and in their 
practical operation have been fraught with the greatest mischief. 

The tendency to latitudinarian indifference is usually exhibited 
when religion is in a low or declining condition. The tendency 
to unnecessary contention about matters unimportant in them- 
selves, or not coming home to our circumstances, and not requiring 
at the time to be contended for, is usually a symptom of a some- 
what more healthy condition of things, — a condition in which Satan 






Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 155 

scarcely ventures to attempt, iu the first instance, to seduce men 
into latituclinarian indifference to truth, but seeks rather to take 
advantage of their zeal for truth, combined, of course, as it is in 
all men, with the operation of inferior motives, to involve them in 
unnecessary contentions about unimportant matters, that waste 
their strength and energy, that lead the love of many to wax cold ; 
and thus tend to bring on that low and declining state of religion 
in which the opposite policy of tempting men into latitudinarian 
indifference to truth may be tried with success, and tried with the 
more success, because of the natural reaction from the low-minded 
and offensive bigotry that preceded it. On this general ground, 
we are persuaded that unnecessary contentions about matters which 
do not deserve, or do not at the time require, to be contended for, 
is the temptation with which good and pious men, occupying 
public situations, are most apt to be beset, and against which, 
therefore, they ought most carefully to guard. Latitudinarian 
indifference to truth does not very easily find its way into the 
hearts of men who have any real sense of divine things and of 
their own responsibility to God, and who are raised by Christian 
principle above the influence of selfish and worldly motives in their 
grosser and more palpable forms ; whereas there are many worldly 
and selfish motives, neither so low in themselves, nor so palpable 
in their ordinary operation, as the love of money, which are very 
apt to mingle with men's zeal for truth, and tend to involve them 
in the guilt of being wanton disturbers of the peace, or obstructors 
of the unity and harmony, of the church. And the instances have 
always been, and still are, numerous and deplorable, in which a 
few men, influenced probably in the main by pious and creditable 
motives, but generally possessing somewhat less than the ordinary 
share of good sense and sound judgment, and more than the ordi- 
nary share of vanity and self-conceit, by taking up and fighting 
some point, perhaps unimportant in itself, or not lying within the 
sphere of their responsibility, have gained for themselves some 
notoriety, and have succeeded in doing a good deal of mischief. 

These reflections of course have suggested themselves rather 
in the way of contrast with those which the case of Melancthon is 
more directly and immediately fitted to call forth. Melancthon 
unquestionably exhibited the opposite, or latitudinarian , extreme 
of compromising or sacrificing the claims of truth ; and it is as a 
warning against this danger, that his example ought to be chiefly 



156 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

and most directly applied. But we have thought it proper to make 
these observations, that it might not be supposed that the danger 
of imbibing his spirit, and of following his example, is the only one 
against which men are called upon to guard, or that there is no 
risk of good men being tempted to engage in unnecessary conten- 
tion, or in wanton disturbance of the peace and harmony of the 
church. The great error and sin of Melancthon was, that in order 
to put an end to contention, and to promote peace and union, he 
was tempted, upon a variety of occasions, to do or to give his consent 
to what plainly amounted to a compromise or sacrifice of scriptural 
doctrine,' — to a sinking or abandoning of a testimony which he was 
called upon to bear for God's truth. This appeared chiefly in the 
form of his being willing to slur over important truths in vague 
and general expressions, which might be adopted by different 
parties who were not really agreed ; and this not for the purpose 
of ascertaining how far parties who confessedly differed, and who 
still meant to keep up a distinct testimony upon the points in 
which they differed, agreed with each other, — for this, in certain 
circumstances, might be both lawful and expedient, nay, even 
obligatory, — but with the express and avowed object of the 
parties uniting together upon the footing of abandoning any other 
public testimony for truth than the very vague and general one in 
which they might have come to agree. This of course was the 
object aimed at in all the conferences and negotiations which he 
had with the Romanists, and in all the discussions which took place 
with regard to the Interim. And this is a course that is generally 
full of peril and beset with temptation — temptation to be unfaithful 
to the truth to which men have been enabled to attain, and which 
it is still incumbent upon them to hold fast and to set forth. 

No one, indeed, would deny, as an abstract truth, that indivi- 
duals and churches may have been led in providence to assert and 
to embody, in their public profession, truths which, though it was 
at the time a duty to contend for them because they were" openly 
impugned, are yet not of so much intrinsic importance as to autho- 
rize their being made permanently grounds of division and separa- 
tion ; and that, therefore, it is an open question for individuals 
and churches to consider occasionally, as they may seem called in 
providence, whether the maintenance of some particular doctrine, 
as a part of their public profession, should continue to prevent 
their union with others with whom, on other points, they are 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 157 

agreed. But though it would be manifestly absurd to deny this 
as a general position, its practical application is attended with great 
difficulty, and requires much care and caution, much prudence 
and circumspection. The practical question in such cases will 
usually turn mainly upon the point, whether the dropping a truth 
from a public profession, or wrapping it up in more vague and 
general terms, really amount, in the circumstances, to a virtual 
denial of it, or involve in any way a dereliction of the duty which 
men owe to it. And when the question is brought to this point, 
there are usually strong temptations, covered over with plausible 
pretences, which are likely to lead men to compromise truths 
which they ought to have maintained. 

Melancthon, probably, would never have been prevailed upon 
to renounce or deny, in words, any of the doctrines of the Augs- 
burg Confession ; but he was tempted, again and again, to do what, 
in all fair and honest construction, amounted to a virtual renuncia- 
tion or denial of them, though, no doubt, he did not regard it in 
that light. And, indeed, the great lesson which his conduct is 
fitted to impress upon us is this, that in certain combinations of 
circumstances, there is great danger that even good men may be 
tempted, from a desire of peace and unity, to compromise the 
truth of God which had been committed to them, and that against 
this danger, and everything that might lead to it, we are required 
most carefully to guard. There can be no doubt that an unscrip- 
tural longing for peace and unity — for there is such a thing, 
springing of course not from pure Christian love, but from the 
infusion of some carnal and worldly motives and influences, or 
from mere natural temperament — has, on a variety of occasions, 
led to corruption and compromise of God's truth, on the part both 
of individuals and churches. And we are thus reminded that, in 
so far as concerns the discharge of the duty which we owe to 
God's truth, we are surrounded with dangers upon the right hand 
and the left, and that we have much need to examine carefully 
the motives by which we may be influenced in these matters, and 
to seek and depend upon divine guidance and direction — practis- 
ing, indeed, because of the abounding difficulties of the subject, 
much forbearance in judging of others, and exercising much 
rigour in judging of ourselves. 

The grievous shortcomings of Melancthon in this matter, his 
being so often led into what amounted to a virtual betrayal or 



158 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

compromise of truth, have been usually ascribed to the timidity of 
his disposition. But this is to be taken with some explanation. 
There is no reason to believe that Melancthon dreaded any tem- 
poral consequences to himself, or that he was influenced by a 
regard to any selfish or worldly considerations in the gross and 
open form in which they usually present themseVes to men's minds 
— in other words, by anything really inconsistent with moral in- 
tegrity. He was afraid of the evils of contention, and he was afraid 
of injuring the cause which he loved ; and these motives, good 
in themselves, but operating with unreasonable and undue force, 
and leading to an inadequate sense of the claims of divine truth, 
and of the responsibility connected with its full and honest main- 
tenance, and tending to exclude a due measure of reliance upon 
God's providence and promises, led him into those compromises 
by which he grievously injured truth and damaged his own 
reputation. In this way he has become useful to the church, 
partly, at least, by exhibiting to future generations a striking 
warning, that even good men, who are raised above the influence 
of fear and selfishness in their gross and palpable forms, may yet, 
through certain weaknesses and infirmities, be led to do much 
injury to the cause which they sincerely desire, and would be 
willing at all merely personal sacrifices, to promote. 

Luther has given a most interesting testimony to Melancthon's 
superiority to fear and worldliness, in all matters that concerned 
himself personally, while he thought him unnecessarily and weakly 
anxious about the public cause ; and we have also a similiar testi- 
mony from Calvin, in a letter addressed to Melancthon himself, 
while faithfully expostulating with him about his conduct in the 
adiaphoristic controversy — a letter which is most honourable to 
its author, while it does ample justice to him to whom it was 
addressed. " Though I am confidently persuaded you never were 
driven by the fear of death to turn aside a hairbreadth from the 
line of duty, yet it is possible your mind may be open to the in- 
fluence of fear of a different description. I know how you shrink 
from the charge of a repulsive rigidity and stiffness. But remem- 
ber the servant of Christ must make light when duty requires it 
of his reputation, as well as his life. Not that I am so little 
acquainted with you, or so unjust to you, as to think you, like 
vainglorious and ambitious men, dependent upon the breath of 
popular applause. But I doubt not you are sometimes subject to 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 159 

compunctious visitings of this kind : — i Is it the part of a wise 
and considerate man to divide the church for trifles? Is not 
peace so precious, that it deserves to be purchased at the price of 
some inconveniences? What madness is it so tenaciously to hold 
to every punctilio as to risk the whole substance of the gospel ? ' 
I suspect that you were formerly too much affected by such sug- 
gestions urged upon you by artful persons, and I candidly state 
my apprehensions to prevent the divine greatness of soul which I 
know belongs to you being now restrained from freely exerting 
itself. I would rather suffer along with you a thousand deaths, 
than see you survive a surrender of the truth. Perhaps my fears 
are vain, but you cannot too carefully guard against giving the 
wicked any occasion of triumph through the faults of your 
temper." * 

Melancthon' s weaknesses and infirmities originated partly in 
his intellectual tendencies and capacities, though even these, it 
should ever be remembered, are very much under the control of 
moral causes, and are therefore comprehended within the sphere 
of moral responsibility. He seems to have had considerable diffi- 
culty in making up his own opinion, clearly and decidedly, upon 
great questions, especially those which were fraught with important 
practical bearings; and this appeared very clearly in the history of 
his theological sentiments. Melancthon adopted, generally speak- 
ing, the theology of Luther; and, perhaps, it may be said that 
the chief, if not the only real service which he rendered to the 
cause of sound Christian theology was, that he explained and de- 
fended the leading tenets of Luther with much dexterity, perspi- 
cuity, and elegance, abstaining commonly from those exaggerated 
and paradoxical statements, by which Luther sometimes gave 
unnecessary offence and called forth needless prejudice, and that 
he thus contributed largely to their reception among the educated 
and intelligent classes. This was the service for which Melanc- 
thon was specially fitted ; this was the work which he performed ; 
and, in performing it, he became the instrument of conferring 
important benefits upon the church, and greatly advancing the 
cause of scriptural truth. This statement, however, must be 
restricted in its application to the doctrines which Melancthon 
continued decidedly and permanently to hold, among those great 



* Scott, vol. iii. pp. 393-4. 



160 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

truths which Luther was chiefly instrumental in restoring to the 
church. And there are some points in Luther's system of theo- 
logy, in regard to which it is not easy to determine with cer- 
tainty whether Melancthon continued really to hold them or 
not. There is, indeed, good reason to fear that his dubious and 
uncertain course in regard to some doctrinal points, tended, in the 
long run, to favour the introduction into the Lutheran church of 
a much more lax and unsound system of theology. He seems to 
have attained at length to sound and scriptural views on the sacra- 
mentarian controversy, and to have abandoned Luther's doctrine of 
consubstantiation, or the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucha- 
rist. But he never had the courage and manliness, even after 
Luther's death, to make a public and explicit declaration of his 
change of sentiment, though Calvin faithfully expostulated with 
him on the impropriety of his conduct. Though, however, his 
opinions upon this point tended to a much closer approximation 
to the standard of truth, the tendency upon other points of still 
greater importance seems rather to have been in the opposite 
direction. 

His principal works, of a more strictly theological kind, are the 
" Apology for the Confession of Augsburg," and the " Loci Com- 
munes." The Apology may be justly regarded as a very valuable 
and satisfactory vindication of the leading Protestant doctrines, in 
so far as they occupied a prominent place in Luther's teaching, 
and had been set forth in the Augsburg Confession, not directly 
including, however, what are usually reckoned the peculiarities of 
the Calvinistic system ; though Luther certainly held these pecu- 
liar doctrines, and there is no good reason to think that he ever 
abandoned them. Melancthon, so far as we can judge from his 
Apology, seems for the time to have been benefited rather than 
injured by the perilous negotiations in which he was involved at 
the diet of Augsburg in 1530, and in which he showed such 
deplorable weakness ; and this work contains no evidence of what 
has sometimes been alleged, viz. that Luther's controversy with 
Erasmus led Melancthon to modify some of the views which he 
had formerly held, but which Luther continued to maintain, as to 
the natural bondage or servitude of the human will in reference to 
everything spiritually good.* 

* Scott is very anxious to make out I is alleged to have addressed to the Car - 
that the two letters which Melancthon | dinal Legate Campeggio at the Diet 



Essay IV.] 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 



161 



The first edition of his Loci Communes was published in 1521, 
when he was only twenty-four years of age. He published a 
second, greatly enlarged and altered, in 1535 ; and again a third, 
with considerable, though less important, changes, in 1543 ; and 
it is the alterations introduced into these different editions, that 
have occasioned the chief difficulties and discussions as to the real 
sentiments of Melancthon upon some doctrinal questions.* In the 
first edition he had maintained the very highest predestinarian 
and necessitarian tenets. He there asserted, that " since all things 
happened necessarily according to the divine predestination, there 
is no such thing as liberty in our wills;" "that the Scriptures 
teach that all things happen necessarily;" "they take away liberty 
from our wills by the necessity of predestination." This was a doc- 
trine which Calvin never taught, and which forms no necessary 
part of the Calvinistic system, though it has been held by some Cal- 
vinistic theologians. Calvin held, and the Westminister Standards 
expressly teach, that man, as originally created, had a liberty of 
will, which fallen man has not ; and consequently he held, that 
any necessity or bondage which he ascribed to the human will as it 
is, was based, not upon man's mere relation to God as a dependent 
creature, — not upon God's predestination, or His foreordaining 
whatsoever comes to pass, and His certainly executing His decrees 
in providence, although He does so, — but upon the entire depravity 
which has been superinduced upon his nature by the fall. The 
high doctrine which Melancthon originally taught, he seems to 
have soon abandoned, as it is wholly expunged from the two sub- 
sequent editions of the Commonplaces. But there is good reason 
to doubt, whether in abandoning this doctrine, which Calvin never 
held, he did not cast off along with it some principles which are 
plainly taught in the word of God, and which have been generally 
held by Calvinistic divines. Melancthon, indeed, asserted in all 
the editions of his Commonplaces, and seems, upon the whole, to 



of Augsburg, must have been forgeries 
(vol. i. App. ii. p. 537). But we fear 
there is no sufficient ground to deny 
their genuineness, which is admitted 
by Dr Merle D'Aubigne, vol. iv. p. 
258, and by Bretschneider, torn. ii. p. 
168. 

* Scott has given a brief summary 
of the differences among the various 
editions of this work, of which the 

VOL. I. 



earlier ones have become extremely 
scarce (vol. ii. c. xii. pp. 182-9). A 
complete collection of the whole ma- 
terials bearing upon the history of 
this work, including a reprint of the 
three different editions entire, and a 
vast amount of literary information, 
occupies the whole of the 21st and 
22d volumes of the works of Mel- 
ancthon. 

11 



162 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

have maintained consistently through life, the doctrine which was 
held in common by Luther and Calvin, as to the entire depravity 
of human nature and the utter impotency of the will of man, as 
he is, to any spiritual good ; although (for there is scarcely any- 
thing about Melancthon in which we are not annoyed with 
deductions and drawbacks) there are not wanting some expres- 
sions in the later editions, which have afforded plausible grounds 
to those who took the unscriptural side in what was called the 
Synergistic controversy that disturbed the Lutheran Church 
chiefly after his death, for alleging that he was not wholly 
opposed to some sort of co-operation or synergism of the human 
will with the gracious agency of God, even in the first movements 
towards regeneration. Calvin published, in 1543, contemporane- 
ously with the last edition of Melancthon' s Commonplaces, his 
" Defensio sanse et orthodoxge doctrinse de Servitute et liberatione 
human i arbitrii," and prefixed to it a dedication to Melancthon, 
in which he spoke of him in the most friendly and eulogistic terms ; 
and Melancthon, in acknowledging it,* says that he agreed with 
Calvin's views upon these subjects, but still with a qualification, 
which, with a man of his temperament, so unwilling on some 
occasions to speak out his mind fully and openly, might cover or 
conceal differences not immaterial. After giving a brief summary 
of his opinions upon these subjects, he adds, " et quidem scio hsec 
cum tuis congruere, sed sunt ira^vrepa et ad usum accommodata." 
We do not estimate the authority of Melancthon so highly as to 
be very anxious to get his testimony in favour of Calvin's views ; 
but it is only fair to Melancthon himself, to give due weight to a 
statement of agreement which is creditable to him, especially as 
nothing has been produced from his works sufficiently explicit to 
prove, that he ever materially deviated from scriptural truth upon 
these important points. 

There is reason to fear that he abandoned, or, at least, that 
he became utterly afraid to state distinctly and explicitly, the 
doctrine of predestination, or unconditional personal election to 
eternal life, as taught in Scripture, and held and expounded by 
Augustine and Calvin. The section upon predestination in the 
later editions of his Commonplaces, may be regarded, with some 
plausibility, either as a specimen of great confusion, or of studied 



* Scott, iii. p. 376. 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 163 

and careful reticence ; but in no other light can it be justly repre- 
sented. And in either case, considering what he had taught upon 
this subject in the first edition, there is reason to fear that his 
timidity, his tendency to shrink from decided views upon great 
and difficult questions involving important practical bearings, had 
led him, in his heart, to abandon an important scriptural truth, 
though he had not the courage openly and fully to admit and 
proclaim the conclusion to which he had come, if, indeed, he had 
come to any very definite conclusion regarding it. 

With respect to the great doctrine of justification by faith 
through the imputed righteousness of Christ, — the establishment of 
which was the distinguishing service which Luther was honoured 
to render to the cause of truth and religion, — -it is but justice to 
Melancthon to say, that in whatever vague, general, and am- 
biguous terms he might have been tempted to express it, in order 
to promote peace, and effect an adjustment with the Church of 
Rome, his own actual sentiments regarding it seem never to have 
varied, or to have been turned aside from scriptural truth. It was 
asserted, indeed, by a body of Lutheran theologians in 1569, a 
few years after his death,* that on one occasion he had used this 
expression, " quod prcecipue fide justificamur," which was certainly 
a deplorable and shameful compromise of the sola fides, for which 
Luther and he had so long and so strenuously contended ; but 
then, it is added in the way of palliation, that this was done 
"tempore magnge angustige et metus," and that he afterwards 
condemned it himself. His works, however, steadily and con- 
sistently maintain the scriptural doctrine of justification, and he 
has rendered no unimportant service to the cause of Christian 
truth by his defence of this fundamental doctrine of the Refor- 
mation. Bossuet, indeed, after having laboured to prove that 
Melancthon's opinions upon most points were loose and fluctuating, 
held with no firmness and stability, is candid enough to admit, 
that there was 'one point on which he did not vary, and which 
formed an impassable barrier between him and the Church of 
Rome, — the only thing, indeed, as Bossuet alleges, which fixed 
him firmly upon the Protestant side, — and this was the doctrine 
of justification by imputed righteousness. \ 



* Weisman Historia Ecclesiastica, I f Histoire des Variations, lib. 
vol. ii. p. 201. I sects. 29, 30. 



164 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV, 

Whatever, then, may have been Melancthon' s personal ex- 
cellences as a man and a Christian, and whatever his services 
to the canse of Protestant truth, we see about him very plain 
indications of tendencies, which should impress us with a sense 
of the great danger of imbibing his spirit, and following his 
example, in matters connected with the public interest of God's 
cause. He had about him weaknesses and infirmities which 
tended to lead him, first, to adopt erroneous and defective views 
of divine truth ; and second, to fail in doing full justice in the 
face of dangers and difficulties, even to what he still believed to 
be true. Our first duty, so far as concerns the public interest 
of God's cause in the world, is to find out the truth which is 
sanctioned by His word, and then to assert, maintain, and defend 
it so far as we have any call or opportunity to do so, — guarding 
with special care against any course of action which might be 
fairly held to involve, directly or by implication, a renunciation 
or denial of any part of it. And these are not duties in which 
the example of Melancthon is fitted to afford us much direct 
assistance, though it may serve as a beacon to warn us against 
dangers and temptations that might lead u^s to come short in the 
discharge of them. There is much about Melancthon, the in- 
fluence of which is fitted to add grace and beauty to our Christian 
profession, to lead us to adorn the doctrine of our God and 
Saviour, and to commend it to the favourable acceptance of 
others ; but these things, however valuable, are of less intrinsic 
importance, than the great duty of ascertaining and holding up 
the whole truth of God, and of contending earnestly for the faith 
once delivered to the saints. 

The question as to the precise views of Melancthon upon some 
of the theological topics to which we have now referred, has been 
pretty fully discussed in this country, in connection with the con- 
troversy as to the doctrinal sense of the Articles of the Church of 
England, and the opinions of those who framed them. It is very 
certain that, during the whole of the long reign of Elizabeth, — in 
many respects the most important and interesting period in the 
history of the Church of England, — the great body of her divines, 
and of her ecclesiastical authorities, including every name of 
eminence to be found in her communion, were Calvinists. It is 
equally certain that, for the last two centuries, a decided majority 
of her clergy have been anti-Calvinists, while there has always 



Essay TV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 165 

been a respectable minority who adhered to the theology of 
Augustine and the Eeformers. As the Articles have continued 
unchanged for 300 years, while the theological views that pre- 
vailed in the church have varied so much, this has led at different 
times to a great deal of discussion as to what the Articles really 
mean, or were intended to mean, and as to what subscription to 
them may be fairly held to imply. Calvinists generally have 
contended that the natural, obvious sense of the Articles is Cal- 
vinism, — moderate Calvinism indeed, cautiously and temperately 
expressed, — that the great body of those who prepared the Articles 
in Edward's time, as well as of those who adopted and estab- 
lished them in the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, with very 
little change, and exactly as they now stand, were Calvinists, — 
and that, on all these grounds, Calvinists need have no hesi- 
tation in subscribing them. The more timid and charitable 
Calvinists have been disposed to admit, that there is an open- 
ing left for men subscribing the Articles w T ho had not embraced 
the peculiarities of Calvinism ; while many profess their inability 
to conceive how this can be done, without putting the Articles 
to a degree of straining and torture that is unwarrantable and 
dangerous. The Arminians, of course, labour to show, that 
there is nothing in the Articles to preclude them from subscrib- 
ing them ; and the more intelligent, conscientious, and modest 
among them, scarcely venture to take higher ground than 
this, — not presuming to deny the perfect warrantableness of Cal- 
vinists entering the ministry of the Church of England, and 
undertaking all the obligations w T hich this implies. Some of 
the more reckless among them, as for instance Bishop Tomline, 
Archdeacon Daubeny, and Archbishop Laurence, have ventured 
to assert that the Articles explicitly contradict the Calvinistic 
doctrine, and of course should shut out all who adhere to it. 
But the more moderate Arminians have generally leant rather 
to the side of merely asking admission for themselves, without 
pretending to exclude their opponents. Bishop Burnet was pre- 
eminently qualified to judge on such a question, both in its 
historical and theological aspects ; and he, though himself a decided 
Arminian, has candidly admitted, that "the 17th Article seems 
to be framed according to St Austin's doctrines," that " it is very 
probable that those who penned it meant that the decree was 
absolute;" and that "the Calvinists have less occasion for scruple 



166 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

(in subscribing it than the Arminians) since the Article does seem 
more plainly to favour them."* 

The aspects in which this subject obviously presents itself are 
not such as to reflect much credit upon the Church of England. 
It is a very awkward and painful thing to see so much controversy 
going on among themselves, as to what those Articles which they 
have all subscribed really mean, or were intended to mean. Some 
contend that they teach Calvinism ; others, that they teach Ar- 
minianism ; others, that they teach both ; and others again, that 
they teach neither, but some other scheme of doctrine different 
from both. Sometimes they denounce one another as dishonest 
in subscribing the Articles in a sense of which they do not fairly 
admit; and sometimes they unite in lauding the wisdom and 
moderation of their church, in leaving an open door for the 
admission of men of different and opposite opinions. It is quite 
possible that churches may carry to an unwise and unreasonable 
extent, the number and minuteness of the doctrinal definitions 
which they embody in their symbolical books, and to which they 
require conformity. But there is no ground whatever to believe 
that the framers of the English Articles were in the least influenced 
by any such wise and moderate views as have been sometimes 
ascribed to them ; the Articles were expressly and avowedly 
intended " for avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the estab- 
lishing of consent touching true religion;" and a considerable 
number of them are occupied with topics which are comparatively 
unimportant in a general summary of Christian doctrine. 

The way in which the controversy has been conducted upon 
the anti-Calvinistic side, has certainly not been creditable to 
most of those who have taken part in it. In general, those who 
have denied the Calvinism of the English Articles have displayed 
a low standard, both of knowledge of the subject and of fair 
dealing. The study of systematic theology has always been greatly 
neglected in the Church of England, partly, perhaps, because of 
the equivocal character of the theology of her Articles, and of the 
earnest desire of many of her clergy to make her theology more 
equivocal than it is ; and without a thorough acquaintance with 
systematic theology, both in its substance and its history, men are 
very incompetent to discuss the questions, whether the Articles are 



Exposition of Articles, Art. 17, p. 165. 



Essay IV.] 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 



1G7 



Calvinistic or Arminian, or both, or neither. Such questions 
cannot of course be intelligently or satisfactorily handled, except 
by men who thoroughly understand what Calvinism is, and what 
Arminianism is ; and this cannot be attained without a real famili 
arity with the works of the ablest men who have discussed these 
subjects on both sides, and at different periods. A man may be 
an Arminian though he is not aware of it, and even honestly, 
though ignorantly, denies it ; and this ignorance and confusion as 
to what Calvinism is, and as to what Arminianism is as opposed 
to it, are plainly exhibited by the late Mr Stanley Faber, and by 
Mr E. Harold Browne, the present Norrisian Professor of Divinity 
at Cambridge. There is, indeed, good reason to believe, that 
there prevails among the clergy of the Church of England, a great 
want of intelligent acquaintance even with the status qucestionis in 
the controversy between the Calvinists and the Arminians. We 
would not hesitate to undertake to prove, that the same charge 
might be established against almost all who have at any time 
professed to show that the English Articles are not Calvinistic* 
We are not, indeed, inclined to speak with much severity of those 
who merely, plead, that while they cannot see satisfactory grounds 
for embracing the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, they, at the 
same time, do not see that these doctrines are so plainly and ex- 
plicitly set forth in the Articles, as to make it impossible for them 
to subscribe them. This ground may be maintained with consi- 
derable plausibility, and when maintained without any palpable 
violations of integrity and propriety, would not exclude its sup- 
porters from a fair claim to respect. But we cannot make the 
same admission in regard to those men who boldly aver that the 
Articles shut out Calvinism, and that they cannot be honestly 
subscribed by Calvinists. 

Before proceeding to make some observations upon the subject 



* We are glad to be able to shelter 
ourselves in making these statements, 
which might seem invidious and pre- 
suming, under the high authority of 
the late Dr M'Crie. In one of the 
notes to his admirable and delightful 
work, the " Life of Andrew Melville," 
he says, "The publications against Cal- 
vinism which have lately appeared in 
England, are in their statement of the 
question unfair, in their reasoning 



shallow, and in respect of the know- 
ledge which they display of the history 
of theological opinions contemptible " 
(C. x. p. 332, edit, of 1856). We take 
the liberty of adopting this statement, 
and of adding, that it is equally appli- 
cable to " the publications against 
Calvinism which have appeared in 
England" during the forty years 
which have intervened since the ap- 
pearance of Dr M'Crie's work. 



168 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

of the theology of the Church of England, it may be proper to 
give some notices of the literature of the question, or of the leading 
features in the history of the very interesting controversial discus- 
sions which have been carried on regarding it. 

That during the whole* reign of Elizabeth, and the greater 
part of that of James, Calvinism prevailed almost universally 
among the men of ability and learning, of station and influence, 
in the Church of England, and was then generally regarded as 
being most fully accordant with its authorized symbols, has been 
incontrovertibly established, by evidence multifarious in kind and 
superabundant in degree. This is proved by the whole history of 
the proceedings connected with the Lambeth Articles and the cases 
of Baro and Barret in 1595, the Irish Articles in 1615, and the 
Synod of Dort in 1618-19. The discussion of this topic as 
a subject of public controversy, seems to have commenced with 
the proceedings in the case of Dr Richard Montague, one of the 
leading agents of Archbishop Laud, in introducing Tractarianism 
and Arminianism. His work entitled " Appello-Csesarem " was 
published in 1625. It was intended to defend himself against 
the charge, founded upon a previous work, of leaning towards 
Arminianism and Popery; and it attempted, to show that the 
Arminian and semi-Popish views objected to, were not contra- 
dicted by anything in the authorized formularies of the church. 
The House of Commons, which at that time was very theological 
and very sound in its theology, passed a vote condemning his 
Appeal, as tending to bring in Popery and Arminianism, in opposi- 
tion to the religion by law established. But what was of more 
importance so far as the interests of truth are concerned, the work 
was formally and elaborately answered by Dr George Carleton, 
then Bishop of Chichester, who had been a few years before the 
head of the English delegates sent to the Synod of Dort, and had 
proved himself fully worthy of so honourable a position. Dr 
Carleton's work was published in 1626, and is entitled "Examina- 
tion of those things wherein the author of the late Appeal taketh 
the doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians to be the doctrines 
of the Church of England." The work is one of much interest 
and value, both from its author and the position it occupies in 
the controversy. It is remarkable, among other things, for the 
distinct assertion, that there had been, up till that time, no real 
difference in doctrinal matters between the Conformists and the 



Essay IV.] THE CHUECH OF ENGLAND. 169 

Puritans. Carleton died in 1628, and through Laud's influ- 
ence Montague was appointed to succeed him in the see of 
Chichester. 

Arminianism continued to advance, and, in 1630, Prynne, the 
famous lawyer, published his " Anti- Arminianism, or the Church 
of England's old antithesis to new Arminianism." This is a vast 
collection of documentary evidence to prove, that from the earliest 
times, and especially since the commencement of the Reformation 
in the time of Henry VIII., the Church of England had been 
decidedly opposed to Arminian views, and had professed the great 
principles of Augustinian or Calvinistic doctrine. This work gave 
mortal offence to Laud and his faction, who were now all-power- 
ful, and was understood to be the principal cause of the barbarous 
punishment which was soon afterwards inflicted upon Prynne, 
though his Histriomastix was made the pretence for it. It is 
a remarkable instance of providential retribution, that Prynne 
became ultimately the chief instrument of accomplishing " Can- 
terbury's doom," as he called one of his books against Laud, and 
bringing him to the scaffold. Prynne was a man of great research 
and industry, as well as thorough integrity. But he had not a 
well-balanced or discriminating mind. He had a much greater 
power of swallowing than of digesting. He was in the habit 
rather of numbering than weighing his proofs and testimonies. 
His " Anti- Arminianism," therefore, like his other works, contains 
a prodigious storehouse of materials in the way of quotations and 
references, much more than sufficient in the gross to establish his 
leading position, but requiring some caution and sifting in the parti- 
cular application of them. He declares that up till the time when 
he wrote he could mention only five men who had come forward 
publicly to defend Arminianism. These were Barret and Baro, 
— whose cases were mixed up with the history of the Lambeth 
Articles, and the proceedings against whom sufficiently proved 
that, in the last decade of the sixteenth century, the whole learn- 
ing and influence of the Church of England were Calvinistic, — 
Thompson, who, he says,* was " a dissolute, ebrious, profane, 
luxurious English- Dutchman," and who, in 1614, published a 
treatise against the perseverance of the saints, which was answered 
by Dr Robert Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury, — Montague, already 



* P. 260. 



170 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

mentioned, successively Bishop of Chichester and Norwich, — and 
Dr Thomas Jackson, a man of a much higher class than any of 
them. Prynne's testimonies certainly require to be winnowed, but 
we have no doubt that he has produced and indicated materials, 
which, taken in cumido, are amply sufficient to prove ten times 
over, that during the whole century intervening between the time 
when he wrote and the first dawning of the Reformation under 
Henry VIII., the prevailing current of opinion with all compe- 
tent judges among the clergy of the Church of England was 
Calvinistic, as opposed to Arminian, — and that the fundamental 
principles of Calvinism, though cautiously and temperately ex- 
pressed, w T ere embodied, and were intended to be embodied, in 
the church's authorized formularies. 

The next w r ork in the order of time is the great storehouse of 
materials on the Arminian side. It is by Dr Peter Heylin, a wor- 
shipper and tool of Laud, whose life he w r rote, under the desig- 
nation of Cyprianus Angiicus. Heylin's work was published in 
1659, and is entitled, " Historia Quinqu-Articularis, or a Declara- 
tion of the Judgment of the Western Churches, and more par- 
ticularly of the Church of England, in the five controverted points 
reproached in these last times by the name of Arminianism." It 
contains an elaborate discussion of most of the materials bearing 
upon the question, as to the original theology of the Protestant 
Church of England. The materials are discussed and applied 
with a good deal of ingenuity and boldness, and the work is in 
many respects w T ell fitted to make an impression, because of its 
author's apparently full knowledge of the subject, and the con- 
fidence with which he takes up his positions. Heylin had very 
much the same intellectual defects as Prynne, and in addition, we 
fear, he laboured under more serious infirmities as a thorough 
and unscrupulous partisan. He had read a great deal, but he w T as 
very imperfectly acquainted with theology properly so called, and 
Archbishop Usher once said of him that he should be sent to 
learn his catechism. He has been convicted of having exhibited 
in this and in his other works a great deal of blundering and mis- 
representation. So certain and notorious is this, that Archdeacon 
Blackburne, in the " Confessional,"* did not hesitate to describe 
him as " a man lost to all sense of truth and modesty whenever 



* P. 153, 2d Edition. 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 171 

the interests or claims of the church came in question ;" and that 
the late Dr M'Crie, after exposing a strange display of ignorance 
made by Bishop Coplestone, adds, " A modern writer who could 
trust Heylin as an authority, deserved to fall into such ridiculous 
blunders."* 

This work of Heylin was answered by Henry Hickman, a 
man of very superior learning and ability, and one of the ministers 
ejected by the Bartholomew Act of 1662. His reply was pub- 
lished in 1673, and entitled, " Historia Quinqu-Articularis Exar- 
ticulata, or Animadversiones on Dr Heylin's Quinquarticular 
History." This work of Hickman's is a very masterly and effec- 
tive exposure of Heylin's incompetency, especially in the more 
theological departments of the argument, and it contains within a 
short compass a large amount of accurate and important informa- 
tion, embodied in a very terse and vigorous, though unpolished, 
style. It ought to have deprived Heylin of all respect and influ- 
ence, and must have done so if it had been read. But it does 
not seem to have ever attained any considerable circulation, and, 
in consequence, the great body of the English clergy continued, 
like Coplestone, to believe Heylin, and to "trust in him as an 
authority." 

The next occasion on which the question of the Calvinism of 
the English Articles was discussed, was when it was brought, some- 
what incidentally, into the Arian controversy. In 1721 Dr 
Waterland published a work entitled, " The Case of Arian Sub- 
scription considered," in answer to the attempt which had been 
made by Dr Samuel Clarke to show, that those who, like himself, 
denied the true and proper divinity of the Son, could honestly 
assent to the formularies of the church. Dr Sykes, who was 
one of Clarke's leading supporters, and who showed himself 
ever ready and willing to defend any bad cause that needed sup- 
port, published a reply to this, called, " The Case of Subscription 
to the Thirty-nine Articles considered." In this pamphlet he laid 
down the position, that the Articles are, and were intended by their 
compilers to be, Calvinistic ; and that Dr Clarke and his friends 
could as clearly prove that Arians could honestly subscribe them, 
as Dr Waterland and his friends could prove that Arminians 
could do so. This was rather galling as an argwnentum ad 



Life of Melville, p. 333. 



172 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

hominem, and Waterland published a " Supplement to the Case of 
Arian Subscription," in which he attempted to answer this and 
the other arguments of Sykes, while Sykes rejoined in a Reply to 
the Supplement. Waterland certainly has not made much of the 
point raised by Sykes about the Calvinism of the Articles ; he 
has done little more than give a brief summary of the materials 
collected by Hejdin ; and this was rather low work for a man of 
Waterland's high and well-merited reputation. Sykes, who was 
no more a Calvinist than a Trinitarian, has certainly not proved 
that an Arian subscriber can make out as plausible a case as an 
Arminian one ; but he has proved, and in this he has defeated his 
antagonist, that the fathers and founders of the Church of Eng- 
land were Calvinists, and intended the Articles to be taken in a 
Calvinistic sense. Waterland, indeed, in discussing this point, 
gives plain indications of not knowing well what to say, or where 
to plant his foot. He sets out with boldly averring — " For my 
own part, I think it has been abundantly proved that our Articles, 
Liturgy, etc., are not Calvinistical." But after giving a summary 
of this abundant proof, and having had to face the 17th Article, 
he winds up with this very lame and impotent conclusion — " the 
presumption rather lies against Calvinism ; " "I am rather of 
opinion that the Article leans to the anti-Calvinian persuasion."* 

This is not very encouraging, but most who have since discussed 
this subject on the same side have referred to and commended 
Waterland's pamphlet, apparently for the purpose of giving their 
cause the prestige of his well-earned reputation for great ability 
and learning, and for invaluable services to truth in defending the 
proper and supreme divinity of our Saviour. 

About fifty years after this, a variety of causes led to the 
renewal of discussions concerning the meaning and object of the 
English Articles, such as, the publication of " Blackburne's Con- 
fessional," advocating very loose and unsound views on the general 
subject of creeds and confessions, but at the same time maintain- 
ing that Sykes had conclusively established against Waterland 
the Calvinism of the Articles, — the application to Parliament in 
1772 by many clergymen to be released from the obligations of 
subscription, — and the expulsion of the "Methodist" students from 
Oxford. Sir Bichard Hill, brother of Bowland, defended the 



Works by Bisliop Van Mildert, vol. ii. pp. 341, 352-3. 



Essay IV.] THE CHUECH OF ENGLAND. 173 

expelled students, by showing that their opinions on doctrinal 
subjects were the same as those of the founders of the Church of 
England, in a pamphlet entitled, "Pietas Oxoniensis;" and when 
Dr No well published a reply to this, it called forth, in 1789, from 
Toplady, then a young man, but of very fine talents and of great 
promise, a crushing answer, entitled, " The Church of England 
vindicated from the charge of Arminianism, and the case of 
Arminian subscription particularly considered." This he after- 
wards expanded into a regular treatise, which he published in 
1774, in two volumes, entitled, "Historic Proof of the Doctrinal 
Calvinism of the Church of England." This work is highly 
creditable to his talents and learning, and is perhaps, upon the 
whole, the most complete and satisfactory book we have, devoted 
to this subject. He is perfectly conclusive in discussing all the 
main topics that bear upon the settlement of the question, but he 
gets rather beyond his depth in dealing with what he calls the 
Arminianism of the Church of Rome, a subject with which he 
was evidently acquainted very imperfectly. 

The only work of that period, on the other side, which has 
attained to any standing, or is now known, is Dr Winchester's 
" Dissertation on the 17th Article," published in 1773, a temperate 
and sensible work, though not displaying much either of strength 
or ingenuity in managing the cause. It was republished in 1803, 
both separately and in the " Churchman's Remembrancer." 

We have already had occasion to refer to the revival of the 
discussion about the historic Calvinism of the Church of England, 
in the end of the last century and the beginning of the present, 
in consequence of the great advance which then took place in 
Christian piety and orthodoxy. In reply to the numerous and 
virulent attacks then made on the evangelical clergy, Mr Overton 
published, in 1801, a volume entitled, " The True Churchman 
ascertained, or an Apology for those of the Regular Clergy of the 
Establishment who are sometimes called Evangelical Ministers." 
This is an able and elaborate work, and certainly establishes satis- 
factorily, that those of the evangelical clergy w 7 ho were moderate 
Calvinists held the same doctrinal views as the fathers and founders 
of the Church of England. In 1803, Archdeacon Daubeny, some 
of whose statements in his previous publications had been refuted 
by Overton, produced a bulky reply to the " True Churchman," 
in an octavo volume of nearly 500 pages, to which he gave a title, 



174 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

framed after a model which was common enough among the older 
controversialists, but which modern civilisation has exploded. It 
was called, " Vindiciaa Ecclesiao Anglicanse, in which some of the 
false reasonings, incorrect statements, and palpable misrepresenta- 
tions, in a publication entitled, etc., are pointed out." Overton's 
"True Churchman" is singularly free from "false reasonings, 
incorrect statements, and palpable misrepresentations;" while 
Daubeny's Vindicise superabounds in these beauties, as was con- 
clusively proved in two works published in 1805, the one entitled, 
" Candid Examination of Daubeny's Vindicise," republished from 
the Christian Observer, and the other by Mr Overton, entitled, 
" Four Letters to the Editor of the Christian Observer." 

In 1802, a pamphlet was published, chiefly occasioned by 
Overton's work, entitled, "The Articles of the Church of Eng- 
land proved not to be Calvinistic," by Dr Kipling, Dean of 
Peterborough, and Deputy Regius Professor of Divinity in the 
University of Cambridge. This production has been very highly 
commended, but it is, we think, a singularly poor affair. Its 
leading feature is the adduction of statements and quotations as 
anti-Calvinistic, which no intelligent Calvinist would hesitate to 
adopt. As this is really a prominent characteristic of most of the 
works on the same side, it may be proper to signalize it, by quot- 
ing Overton's description of it as exhibited by Kipling, and in 
contrast with the applause with which his work was received. 

" No reasoning can "be more futile than that of Dr Kipling upon this sub- 
ject. It is capable of the fullest demonstration, that, by the same process, 
the learned Dean might prove the complete anti-Calvinism of Calvin himself. 
It is a fact, which nothing but the most perfect disingenuity or ignorance of 
the subject can controvert, that nine- tenths at least of the arguments ex- 
tracted from our Articles and Liturgy, by which the Dean endeavours to prove 
the utter repugnancy of these forms to the theology of Calvin, may also be 
extracted from Calvin's own writings. Yet this reasoning of Dr Kipling is 
continually represented as '"demonstrative and incontrovertible;' 1 as possessing 
' uncommon merit;' 1 as ' invincible," 1 and not less clear than ' mathematical demon- 
stration itself;" 1 as having '■proved to demonstration ' the point he had to estab- 
lish ; as ' decisive" 1 on the question, and such as ought to ' set it at rest for ever." 1 
These verdicts, too, the reader will perceive, are pronounced by the professed 
guardians of truth and religion, by writers who highly extol each other as 
learned divines ! " * 



Four Letters, Let. ii. p. 29. 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 175 

All the expressions here quoted were actually applied to Dr 
Kipling's production by the reviewers and pamphleteers of the 
period. 

The "Bampton Lecture" for 1804 was preached by Dr Richard 
Laurence, then Regius Professor of Hebrew in Oxford, and after- 
wards Archbishop of Cashel, and it is entitled, " An Attempt to 
illustrate those Articles of the Church of England which the 
Calvinists improperly consider as Calvinistic." Dr Laurence was 
a man of superior learning and ability; he has made some valuable 
contributions to our theological literature; his "Bampton Lecture" 
contains a great deal of interesting and valuable matter, it has 
been republished repeatedly — the fourth and last edition having 
come out in 1853 — and it is now justly regarded as the standard 
work on the Arminian side. On these grounds it will be needful 
for us to notice it more fully. At present we merely mention it 
in its chronological order. 

The controversy w r as renewed by the publication, in 1811, of 
Bishop Tomline's well-known work, " The Refutation of Cal- 
vinism." He had given, in a previous work, " Elements of 
Christian Theology," the common Arminian interpretation of the 
Articles ; and in the " Refutation " he gives fully the argument 
against Calvinism, not only from Scripture and the Fathers, but 
also from the history and formularies of the Church of England. 
This work was at one time prodigiously commended. Indeed, we 
have a recollection of having once looked into a book by an 
Episcopalian clergyman, in which it was extolled as one among 
the four or five greatest works ("Butler's Analogy" being men- 
tioned as one) the Church of England has produced. The book has 
long since found its level, and is now regarded as a very mediocre 
production, displaying considerable diligence in the collection 
of materials, but an utter want either of ability or of fairness in 
the application of them. Scott's "Remarks" upon it are a full and 
conclusive, though from the plan pursued of following his opponent 
step by step, a somewhat tedious exposure of the " Refutation;" 
and they establish the great superiority, in all respects, of the rector 
over his bishop, of the inmate of the humble parsonage of Aston 
Sandford over the occupant of the venerable palace of Buckden. 

The " Inquiry into the Doctrines of the Reformation, and of 
the United Church of England and Ireland, respecting the ruin 
and recovery of Mankind," published in 1814, by the Rev. W. B. 



176 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

Mathias of Dublin, is a valuable compilation, consisting almost 
wholly of extracts, and turning to good account, so far as the 
" United Church " is concerned, the writings of its fathers and 
founders, which had been made accessible by Legh Eichmond's 
work formerly referred to. 

This brings us down to the present day, when the discussion 
about the theological views of the founders and the formularies of 
the Church of England has been renewed, and in a somewhat 
different aspect, in connection with the controversy about bap- 
tismal regeneration. Dr Goode, now Dean of Ripon, to whose 
great learning and ability as an opponent of Tractarianism and a 
defender of evangelical truth, we have repeatedly borne a cordial 
testimony, published, in 1849, a most valuable and important work 
on this subject, entitled, "The Doctrine of the Church of England 
as to the Effects of Baptism in the case of Infants," — the great 
general object of which was to show, that those who rejected the 
Tractarian doctrine of baptismal regeneration might conscien- 
tiously undertake all the obligations connected with the ministry 
of the church, including of course the use of the baptismal service. 
One leading argument which he employs, in order to establish this 
general position, is in substance this : No one who embraces the 
Calvinistic system of theology can consistently believe the High 
Church doctrine of baptismal regeneration ; the great body of the 
fathers and founders of the Church of England, the men who 
prepared her formularies, her Articles and Liturgy, in the reign 
of Edward, and established them, with scarcely any change and 
almost precisely as we now have them, in the reign of Elizabeth, 
were Calvinists ; and, consequently, there can be no inconsistency 
between a reception of these formularies and a rejection of the 
Tractarian doctrine of baptismal regeneration. 

The different positions which go to make up this argument, 
Dr Goode has discussed with great talent and erudition. We 
are not called upon to express an opinion upon the question, 
whether he has fully established his general conclusion. We have 
not, indeed, examined the whole matter with sufficient care, to 
entitle us to pronounce a judgment upon the main question in- 
volved. But we have no doubt that he has conclusively established 
the position, that the great body of the leading English divines, 
both during the short reign of Edward and the long reign of 
Elizabeth, were Calvinists, and of course would not admit any- 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 177 

thing into the public formularies of the church which was incon- 
sistent with Calvinism. To the proof of that position he has 
devoted the third chapter of his work, consisting of above one 
hundred pages, " On the school of theology to which our Reformers 
and early divines belonged." He has not contented himself, as 
most controversialists on such questions do, with merely borrowing 
the materials provided by his predecessors, but has subjected the 
whole of the old materials to a fresh and independent examination ; 
and has also turned to good account some very important new 
materials, furnished by the "Zurich Letters," now for the first 
time published by the Parker Society. He has not spent much 
time in refuting the attempts of the Arminians to establish their 
position. He is occupied mainly with adducing the direct positive 
evidence on the other side ; and that evidence is such as to be 
plainly and palpably unanswerable. With all competent and fair- 
minded men, it must now be held to be settled, that the Reformers 
and the early divines of the Church of England belonged to the 
Calvinistic school of theology. It follows from this that there can 
be nothing in her formularies which does not admit, at least, of a 
Calvinistic interpretation ; while it may still be a question, to what 
extent they have introduced their Calvinism into the formularies, 
and thus in a sense imposed it upon the church. 

Archdeacon Wilberforce, who had not then joined the Church 
of Rome, published an answer to Dr Goode's book, under the 
title of " The Doctrine of Holy Baptism," displaying, as all his 
works do, very considerable learning and ingenuity. He does 
not give much prominence to the consideration of the question, 
whether the founders of the Church of England were Calvinists 
or not. He in a great measure evades this question, and considers 
it his best policy to rest directly and immediately upon the position, 
that the formularies, as they stand, do clearly and certainly teach 
baptismal regeneration — teach it so clearly and certainly, that 
no indirect or collateral evidence can affect the proof of this doc- 
trine being taught in them. He asserts, indeed, that the formu- 
laries of the Church of England were not drawn up by Calvinists ; 
but for the proof of this, so far as the Articles are concerned, 
he just refers to Laurence's " Bampton Lectures ;" and in regard 
to the mass of conclusive evidence adduced by Dr Goode on the 
other side, he can scarcely be said even to look at it. He pro- 
tests " against the injustice with which Goode treats Archbishop 

VOL. I. 12 



178 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

Laurence," # and opposes to his " hostile judgment" a high eulogium 
pronounced upon the "Bampton Lectures" by Mr Stanley Faber, 
in his work on " Primitive Election." Mr Faber has not shown 
such a discriminating judgment, or such a full and comprehensive 
knowledge of the bearings and relations of the subject of which 
he treats, as to entitle his opinion, upon any topic involved in the 
discussion, to much respect. But still Laurence was a man of 
very superior learning and ability. His "Bampton Lecture" 
is the most learned and elaborate attempt that has ever been 
made to show that the Articles of the Church of England are not 
Calvinistic, and it seems to be now generally regarded by the 
Arminians as their standard defence. In addition to the com- 
mendations of it by Faber and Wilberforce, it is represented as 
satisfactory and conclusive, along with Winchester's Dissertation 
on the 17th Article, by one quite entitled to be ranked with these 
men, the late Archdeacon Hardwicke, whose striking and pre- 
mature death, a year or two ago, among the Pyrenees, was uni- 
versally regarded as a great loss to our theological literature.! On 
these accounts it will be proper to give a somewhat fuller notice 
of Laurence's work ; and this will lead us into the merits of the 
subject. 

The injustice with which Wilberforce alleges that Goode 
treated Laurence, is brought out in the following passage : — 

" I cannot but enter my humble protest against the remarkable partiality 
and superficial character of the work above referred to (Archbishop Laurence's 
' Bampton Lectures'), and consequently the erroneous nature of the view 
it gives of the subject of which it treats ; and I trust that the few facts I am 
about to mention will be sufficient to put the reader on his guard against its 
statements." % 

We give only one specimen of the facts by which Goode has 
established the truth of this charge : — 

" And here, again, I must notice the remarkable partiality displayed by 
Archbishop Laurence in his ' Bampton Lectures.' From a perusal of these 
Lectures, one might suppose that Melancthon was the only one of the foreign 
Reformers invited to this country by Cranmer, and the invitations addressed 
to Mm are very carefully recorded ; while the fact is, that, with this single 
exception, almost all, if not all, who were invited to this country by Cranmer, 



* P. 235. I i Effects of Baptism, p. 55, 2d 

f History of the Articles, p. 372. | Edit, 






Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 179 

to aid him in the work of reformation, were of the Reformed churches, and 
therefore of Zwinglian or Calvinistic views."* 

In addition to the facts adduced by Goode, we may mention 
some specimens of Laurence's mode of discussing this subject, 
which will convince most men that, to whatever cause it is to be 
ascribed, he was incapable of exercising discrimination, or of mani- 
festing ordinary fairness, w^hen he had Calvin or Calvinism to 
deal with. 

He thus announces his general opinion of Calvin, which will 
probably be received by most people as a novelty : — " No man, 
perhaps, was ever less scrupulous in the adoption of general 
expressions, but perhaps no man ever adopted them with more 
mental reservations, than Calvin."f The man who could believe 
and assert this would assuredly scruple at nothing. 

" ' Horribile quidem decretum fateor !' were the precise expres- 
sions which he used when shuddering at his own favourite idea 
of irrespective reprobation." J The quoting Calvin's words, in 
order to convey to English readers the idea that he confessed that 
his doctrine concerning the divine decree was horrible, when it 
is notorious and unquestionable that he only intended to represent 
it as awful, fitted to call forth deep emotions of awe and solemnity, 
as an inscrutable and alarming mystery, just as he speaks of the 
" horribilis Dei majestas," || is merely an instance of the universal 
unfairness exhibited by the Anglican Arminians. There is not 
a man among them, from the highest to the lowest, who has been 
able to deny himself the pleasure and the triumph of quoting 
Calvin's alleged confession about the "horrible decree." Thus 
far Laurence stands on the same level with a crowd of associates 
— defendit numerus ; but in the way in which he has brought out 
this point there is a special unfairness, which has not often been 
equalled. "Irrespective reprobation" (an expression which of 
itself conveys a misrepresentation) is not the subject of which 
Calvin is speaking. He is treating only of the implication of the 
human race in the penal consequences of Adam's first sin, and 
of the purpose and agency of God in relation to the fall and its 
results. It is surely time that anti-Calvinists, who profess any 
regard for truth or decency, should drop this topic of the " horrible 
decree," after having made it do duty for a couple of centuries. 

* P. 65. t Sermon ii. p. 45. 

f Sermon viii. Note 4, p. 375. J || Inst. lib. iii. c. 20. s. 17. 



180 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

In his destitution of solid proof to show that the compilers of 
the English Articles did not embrace the theological views of Cal- 
vin, he has recourse to the following curious piece of evidence : — 
" If Calvin's system had been adopted by our Reformers, never 
surely would they have inserted among our Articles that of Christ's 
descent into hell, which seems to have been directly levelled against 
one of his peculiar opinions, and one which he thought important."* 
What connection there can be between the grounds for believing 
either that the English Reformers had, or that they had not, 
adopted Calvin's system of theology, and the mode in which they 
dealt with a topic so irrelevant and so unimportant, comparatively, 
as Christ's alleged descent into hell, it would puzzle most men of 
common sense to discover. But, besides, the statement of Laurence 
about the descent into hell, in its relation to Calvin's opinions, 
is quite inconsistent with the notorious facts of the case. The 
English Article (the 3d*) is simply an adoption of the Article in 
what is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, which is just the 
creed of the Roman Church. This topic of the descent into hell 
did not find its way into the Roman creed till the fifth century, 
and it certainly ought never to have been introduced into any 
creed or confession. What tempted the compilers of the English 
Articles to devote one of them to this topic it is not easy to under- 
stand, even though there were some at the time who denied it. 
But Laurence's notion, that it is " directly levelled against one of 
Calvin's peculiar opinions," is simply preposterous. It is perfectly 
notorious that Calvin rejoiced and exulted in the article in the 
creed about the descent into hell, as explicitly sanctioning " one of 
his peculiar opinions ;" and he even seems to have so far yielded 
to a common infirmity of human nature, as to have been disposed, 
because of its containing this article, to think more favourably of 
the claim put forth by the Church of Rome, on its behalf, to an 
apostolic origin.f 

Laurence takes great pains to make out, as affording a pre- 
sumption against the English Articles being Calvinistic, that in 
1553, when they were first established, Calvin was not much 
known in England, — that his peculiar theological system had not 
then attracted much notice, and was not generally received even 
in the continental Reformed churches ; and Faber has followed 



* P. 245. f Inst. lib. ii. c. xvi. ss. 8 and 18. 



Essay IV.] 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 



181 



him in this course of argument.* The alleged facts are greatly 
Overstated ; and though they were all true, they would not furnish 
even a presumption in favour of the conclusion deduced from 
them. Calvin had fully set forth his system of theology in the 
first edition of his " Institutes" in 1536 ; and from the time of his 
return to Geneva in 1541, he occupied a position of prominence 
and influence in the Protestant world, certainly inferior to that of 
no other man, instructing the churches everywhere by his writ- 
ings, and guiding them by his counsels. Cranmer had repeatedly 
sought his advice, and urged him to correspond with King Edward. 
In the beginning of 1552, before proceeding to draw up Articles 
for the Church of England, Cranmer's mind was much set upon 
the preparation of a general confession of faith for the Protestant 
churches, and with this view he invited to England Calvin, Bul- 
linger, and Melancthon. Calvin's great work, the Consensus 
Genevensis, or Treatise de JE tenia Dei Predestinatione, was pub- 
lished in 1551, or very early in 1552 ; and we have direct and 
explicit evidence that it did exert an influence on the deliberations 
and consultations which were going on in England in the course 
of that year, in connection with the preparation of the Articles. It 
is but fair to mention, that this evidence was unknown to Laurence, 
having been published for the first time by the Parker Society 
in 1846, in the third series of the " Zurich Letters ;" but it affords 
a good illustration of the truth, that a just cause is always advanced 
by the progress of research and discovery. It is found in a letter 
of Traheron, Dean of Chichester and Librarian to King Edward, 
written to Bullinger in September 1552, while the Articles were 
under consideration, and undergoing the revision of various parties, 
civil and ecclesiastical, but not yet published : — 

" The greater number among us, of whom I own myself to be one, embrace 
the opinion of John Calvin, as being perspicuous and most agreeable to Holy- 
Scripture. And we truly thank God, that that excellent treatise of the very- 
learned and excellent John Calvin, against Pighius and one Georgius Siculus, 
should have come forth at the very time when the question began to be agi- 
tated among us ; for we confess that he has thrown much light upon the sub- 
ject, or rather so handled it, as that we have never before seen anything more 
learned or more plain." f 



* Laurence, pp. 44, 144, 236 ; Faber 
on Primitive Election, p. 356. 

t Zurich Letters, 3d series, p. 325. 
Since writing this, we happened to 



notice that this, and some other ex- 
tracts from Traheron's letters to Bul- 
linger, had been published by Hottin- 
ger, from the original in Zurich, in 



182 



MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay. IV. 



But in truth this discussion about Calvin is to a consider- 
able extent irrelevant, — at least the proof of the Calvinism of the* 
English Reformers and their formularies is not dependent upon 
the settlement of this point, and indeed cannot be materially 
affected by it. No one ascribes the Calvinism of the English 
Reformers to the personal influence of Calvin and his writings. 
It is to be traced chiefly to the study of the word of God and 
of the writings of Augustine. To the study of the writings of 
Augustine is to be traced, in strumen tally, a large proportion 
of the piety and orthodoxy that adorned the church for above 
1000 years before the Reformation. The great body of the Re- 
formers on the continent embraced Calvinism, even those who 
published their views before Calvin's name was known, and almost 
all of them ascribed much influence to Augustine's works in the 
formation of their opinions. This holds true also of the earliest 
English Reformers. Tyndale, Frith, and Barnes, who suffered 
martyrdom in the time of Henry VIII., were evidently familiar 
with the writings of Augustine, and from the study of his works 
and of the word of God they had become Calvinists. Calvinism, 
indeed, was not a new or unknown thing in England even before 
the Reformation. The three greatest men the church of that 
country had produced were Anselm and Bradwardine, both Arch- 
bishops of Canterbury, and Wy cliff e, professor of theology at 
Oxford ; and these men were all Calvinists — Anselm, indeed, in 
a less developed form, but Bradwardine and Wycliffe most fully 
and explicitly. These things are all well known, and in this state 
of matters it is mere unworthy trifling to seek, as Laurence does, 
to find even a presumption bearing upon the subject of the Calvin- 
ism of the English Reformers, in a minute investigation of the 
question how far Calvin and his writings were known to them or 
consulted by them in the year 1552. 

We have said enough, we think, to show that, on this question at 
least, Archbishop Laurence is entitled to no deference whatever; 
and that in point of accuracy of statement and solidity of argu- 
ment, he has sunk to the level of the generality of those who, from 
Heylin downwards, have undertaken the defence of the same cause. 



his Hist. Eccles., torn. \ iii. pp. 721-4 ; 
but they were certainly very little 
known in this country till published 
by the Parker Society. The apology 



for Laurence was suggested to us by 
a statement to the same effect, made 
by Wilberforce, in attempting to de- 
fend him against Goode, p. 237. 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 183 

But it is quite possible, notwithstanding all we have seen, that 
the book may contain sufficient materials to prove that the Articles 
are not Calvinistic. The leading feature of the book — determining, 
however, rather the form into which the materials are thrown than 
the substance of the materials themselves — is, that it professes to 
bring out fully and precisely the doctrines that generally prevailed 
in the Church of Rome before the Reformation ; and, since the 
doctrines of the Articles were very much directed against the 
errors that prevailed, to employ a knowledge of the errors for 
ascertaining the precise import of the correctives applied. This 
process is in its general character fair and reasonable, but it 
requires a more thorough knowledge of the whole subject, and 
a larger amount both of ability and candour, than Laurence 
possessed, to turn it to good account, and to bring out of its 
application results that can be relied upon. The way in which he 
applies his general principle is to this effect. He brings out fully 
the thoroughly unsound and Pelagian character of the views which 
generally prevailed in the church, and especially among the 
schoolmen, the leading divines of the period, on the subjects of 
original sin, free will, merit, justification, and predestination. He 
then assumes, that from the extreme unsoundness of the Popish 
doctrine, no very large amount of soundness, nothing of an 
Augustinian or Calvinistic character in the Protestant corrections 
of it, need be supposed to be necessary or even probable, — that 
there might probably be a full and ample repudiation of the 
Popish error without any leaning towards the other extreme. The 
practical application he makes of this notion, is to establish it as a 
sort of general rule, that there is a presumption in favour of the 
lowest and most moderate interpretation of the doctrinal statements 
of the Reformers, provided they are still held so sound and 
evangelical as to convey a condemnation of the grossly Pelagian 
views which generally prevailed before the Reformation. But 
there is really no weight in all this. The general position, that a 
knowledge of the precise opinions which prevailed before the 
Reformation may be usefully applied in ascertaining the exact 
import and bearing of the statements adopted by the Reformers 
upon the same points, is certainly well founded. But there is no 
ground for the notion which constitutes Laurence's peculiar 
principle, viz. that there is a general presumption in favour of the 
Protestant deviation from ante-Reformation Pelagianism being 



184 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

the smallest which the words used will admit of. We know of 
no ground for any such presumption, and we cannot admit it. 
Our conviction is, that the great glory of the Reformation, in a 
doctrinal point of view, is that the Reformers, and especially 
Calvin, saw and proclaimed that it was necessary, as the only 
thorough and permanent counteractive to the gross Pelagianism 
of the Church of Rome, and to all the practices based upon it, to 
go back, decidedly and avowedly, even above and beyond the 
Calvinism of Augustine to the Calvinism of the New Testament. 
This certainly was the ground taken by the great body of the 
continental Reformers, though Melancthon, whose weaknesses and 
infirmities were so great and palpable, partially abandoned it. 
And if it is alleged that the Reformers of England took lower 
and narrower ground than this, and contented themselves with 
merely condemning and lopping off some of the grosser and more 
offensive developments of the prevailing Pelagianism, this must be 
established, not by vague and baseless presumptions, but by direct 
and positive proof, by a deliberate and detailed examination of the 
actual doctrines they have propounded on every topic of import- 
ance. Laurence has no difficulty in showing, that the doctrines 
which generally prevailed before the Reformation on the subjects 
of original sin,, free will, justification, and merit, were of a 
thoroughly Pelagian complexion, and, of course, might have been 
contradicted and excluded by statements, upon the part of the 
Reformers, which did not go beyond the standard of what might 
now be called Arminianism. But this is of no real value in prov- 
ing that they stopped there, and did not go on to bring out, as 
the only complete and effectual antidote to the Pelagianism of 
the schoolmen, at least the whole Calvinism of Augustine. 

It is chiefly, however, with Laurence's discussion of the subject 
of predestination that we have to do at present. And this differs 
in several respects from the other topics introduced. On the 
subjects of original sin, free will, grace, justification, and merit, 
while there is but one doctrine that is true, there is room for a 
considerable variety of opinions, more or less plausible, and more 
or less nearly approximating to the truth, the difference being in 
degree rather than in kind. But in regard to predestination, 
there are really just two sides, clearly and distinctly defined, and 
every man who has formed an intelligent judgment upon the 
matter must be either a Calvinist or an anti-Calvinist, — that is, he 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 185 

must either assert or deny, that God has from eternity chosen some 
men, certain persons of the human race individually, to salvation 
through Christ, and has determined to effect and secure their 
salvation in accordance with the provisions of the covenant of 
grace. Another difference is, that Pelagian or Arminian views in 
regard to predestination were not so generally prevalent in the 
Church of Rome as in regard to the other topics. Some of the 
most eminent of the schoolmen, while supporting Pelagian views 
on depravity, justification, and grace, continued to hold, in sub- 
stance, Augustinian views in regard to predestination. Their 
unsoundness in regard to the one class of topics was owing to the 
want of a careful and humble study of the Bible, and to the low 
state of personal religion, and their comparative soundness on 
the other was to be ascribed to the strength and vigour of their 
intellects, and their fondness for prosecuting profound specula- 
tions ; while the Calvinism of the Reformers indicated at once, 
and in combination, the deepest sense of divine and eternal things, 
in regard to those matters which bear more immediately upon 
personal duty and experience, and the most profound and elevated 
conceptions about the deep things of God. 

Ignorance or disregard of these points of difference, and of 
the facts connected with them, has led to a thorough failure in 
Laurence's attempt to apply his general principle to the subject 
of predestination. He misrepresents the views that generally 
prevailed in the church before the Reformation, describing them 
as more anti-Calvinistic than they were ; and he utterly fails to 
bring out any substantial difference, though he professes to have 
done so, between the doctrine which he ascribes to the schoolmen, 
and that which he ascribes to Melancthon and the Lutherans, and 
which he represents as the doctrine of the English Reformers. 
Mr Mozley, a man of a far higher order of intellect, and much 
more profoundly versant in the subjects of which he treats, has 
proved, in his work on Predestination,* that Laurence has mis- 
understood and misrepresented the views of Thomas Aquinas, the 
greatest and most influential of all the schoolmen, and has shown 
that the angelic Doctor, instead of being a low Arminian, as 
Laurence alleges, was in substance an Augustinian and a Cal- 
vinist. Mozley, like most men who have intellect enough and 



C. x. pp. 280-5. 



/ 



186 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

erudition enough to understand this matter, believes and maintains, 
that there is " no substantial difference between the Angustinian 
and Thomist and the Calvinist doctrine of predestination."* Lau- 
rence evidently did not understand the status quoestionis in the 
controversy between Calvinists and Arminians. He had no clear 
and definite conception of what Calvinism is, and of what Armi- 
nianism is, as opposed to it. Laurence ascribes a certain doctrine 
on the subject of predestination to the schoolmen and to the 
Church of Eome, and then he alleges that the Lutherans, with 
whose theological views he identifies those of the Church of Eng- 
land, " differed from the Church of Rome in several important 
particulars ;" nay, that "they were entirely at variance with her 
upon the very foundation of the system." f The doctrine which 
he ascribes to the Church of Rome is simply Arminianism, in the 
form of an alleged election of individuals to salvation, founded 
on a foresight of their faith, holiness, and perseverance ; and the 
doctrine of the Lutherans and Anglicans, alleged to differ from this, 
" upon the very foundation of the system," just consists of the very 
same Arminianism, — that is, of the same denial of the fundamental 
principle of Calvinism, put in the form or based upon the ground 
of an assertion, that election is merely a choice of men in the mass, 
or taken collectively, to the enjoyment of outward privileges, which 
they may improve or not as they choose. Laurence's argument 
is, that since there existed this fundamental difference between the 
Church of Rome and the Lutheran and Anglican Reformers, it 
is probable that the latter did not deviate further from the Romish 
doctrine than this difference indicates. There is a deplorable 
amount of ignorance and confusion in all this ; and though it has 
not much connection with the argument upon the subject imme- 
diately under consideration, it maybe proper to give some explana- 
tions concerning it, especially as we find some additional blundering 
on the same subject, and in a different direction, among some of 
those who have taken part in this controversy on the same side 
with Laurence. 

Dr Tucker, Dean of Gloucester, in his Letters to Dr Kippis, 
published in 1773, in adverting to the alleged Calvinism of the 
Church of England, ventured upon the assertion, that, " at the 
time just preceding the Reformation, the Church of Rome, in 



* Note xxi. p. 413. f Pp. 163, 164. 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 187 

respect to predestination, grace, free will, and perseverance, was 
truly Calvinistical." This idea tickled the Anglican Arminians 
greatly. They chuckled over it as a proof that the Church of 
England must be anti-Calvinistic ; while, at the same time, they 
must have felt somewhat doubtful about the accuracy of the 
statement as to the matter of fact. Dr Winchester, whose Disser- 
tation on the 17th Article was published very soon after, adopted 
it as true, and founded an argument upon it ;* and he was 
followed in this both by Bishop Tomline, in his Elements of 
Christian Theology,f and by Archdeacon Daubeny, in his Vin- 
dicise.! Laurence knew too much of the subject to swallow 
this ; and, besides, his argument led him to take the opposite 
tack, to found much upon the opposite position, that the Church 
of Kome was thoroughly Arminian. The argument of Tucker 
and his followers was this : the Church of Rome w T as Calvinistic, 
and therefore the Church of England is probably Arminian. The 
argument of Laurence was : the Church of Rome was grossly 
Arminian, and therefore there is a strong probability that the 
Church of England, in reforming herself, would not go so far 
away as to embrace Calvinism, but would be contented with 
adopting a less gross and more refined Arminianism. The com- 
mon conclusion is false, the argument in both cases is weak and 
untenable, and the main fact asserted is, in both cases, altogether 
inaccurate. Before the Reformation, the Church of Rome could 
not be said to be either Calvinistic or Arminian, — that is, she had 
not formally and officially committed herself to either side in this 
great controversy. She had always professed great respect for 
the opinions of Augustine, and for the decisions of the African 
Synods and the Council of Orange in the Pelagian controversy ; 
and she had never, as a church, formally and officially given any 
doctrinal decision inconsistent with that profession. Thus far she 
might be said to be Calvinistic. But, on the other hand, it is 
certain that doctrines of a Pelagian and semi-Pelagian cast had 
been long sanctioned by a very large portion of her most influen- 
tial authorities, and especially by many of the schoolmen ; so 
that before the Reformation, Pelagianism might be said to per- 
vade nearly the whole of the ordinary teaching of the church, 
though it had never been formally sanctioned as authoritative and 



* P. 79. f Vol. ii. p. 320. t P- 80. 



188 



HELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 



binding. In these circumstances the Church of Rome could not 
with propriety be said to be either Augustinian or Pelagian, 
although, in somewhat different senses and aspects, both designa- 
tions might be applied to her. The Reformers, both in England 
and on the continent, were led, almost to a man, by the study of 
the Bible and of the works of Augustine, and, as we believe, 
under the guidance of the Spirit of God, to repudiate the Pela- 
gianism or Arminianism which prevailed all around them in the 
ordinary teaching of the church, and to fall back upon the Cal- 
vinism of the New Testament and of the Bishop of Hippo. But 
as the church officially was not at the time committed to oppose 
Augustinian or to support Pelagian views, the topics involved in 
that controversy did not form any proper part of the dispute be- 
tween the Reformers and the Church of Rome ; and, in conse- 
quence, they were not subjected to a full, searching, and exhaustive 
discussion, until they came to form the subject of disputes among 
Protestants themselves, in contending first with the Lutherans, 
when they had thrown off the Calvinism of their master, and 
afterwards with the Arminians. 

It was on this ground that the doctrine of predestination was 
not formally discussed and decided on in the Council of Trent. 
It was, however, incidentally brought under the consideration of 
the council in connection with the subject of free will and justi- 
fication ; and the account which Father Paul has given of the 
debate that took place, decidedly confirms the impression, which 
the whole history of all the discussions that ever have taken place 
upon these matters is fitted to produce, viz. that there is a clear 
line of demarcation between the fundamental principle of the 
Augustinian or Calvinistic, and the Pelagian or Arminian, systems 
of theology, — that the true status qucestionis in the controversy be- 
tween these parties can be easily and exactly ascertained, — that it 
can, without difficulty, be brought to a point where men may and 
should say either Ay or No, and according as they say the one 
or the other, may be held to be, and may be warrantably called, 
Calvinists or Arminians.* But though the doctrine of predesti- 



* It is not difficult to show that it 
is one and the same great controversy, 
in its main substance and leading 
features, which has been carried on, 
in every age, by the Augustinians, 



Thomists, Dominicans, Jansenists, 
and Calvinists on the one side, and 
by Pelagians, Scotists, Franciscans, 
Jesuits, and Arminians on the other. 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 189 

nation was discussed in the Council of Trent, and discussed on 
the same grounds on which it always has been and must be dis- 
cussed, between Calvinists and Arminians who understand what 
they are about, no decision was pronounced upon the subject in 
any of the leading aspects of the question; and the members of the 
church were left quite free, as the Jansenists always contended, to 
maintain, if they chose, the whole theological system of Augustine. 
The Church of Rome has since, indeed, become more deeply 
tainted with Pelagianism by the doctrinal decisions pronounced 
in the cases of Baius, Jansenius, and QuesneL But we are not 
aware that there is even now any decision of that church, which 
stands in the way of her members maintaining the whole substance 
of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. 

While it is certain that the great body of the Reformers 
adopted in substance the theological system of Augustine, and 
while it is certain that the system of Augustine was, in its funda- 
mental characteristic features, just the system of Calvin, — the 
difference between the views of Augustine and Calvin being 
greatly less in point of intrinsic importance than the differences 
between Augustine's views and any form whatever of anti-Cal- 
vinism, — it is not disputed that there were considerable differences 
among individuals and sections of the Reformers, in the way and 
manner in wdiich their theological views were developed and 
applied. Constitutional capacities and tendencies, intellectual 
and moral, peculiar habits of thought and feeling, specialities 
occurring in the course of their studies and occupations — all these, 
variously modified, no doubt, operated in different ways, and to 
a considerable extent, in influencing their mode of conceiving, 
representing, and applying doctrines which were in substance the 
same. And these causes of diversity amid unity ought to be 
taken into account, and fairly estimated and allowed for, not in 
judging of truth, but in judging of the men, and in exhibiting 
towards them due forbearance and fairness. 

The men among the Reformers who exhibited the highest 
mental powers, and exerted the largest amount of influence as 
individuals in their different spheres, viz. Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, 
and Knox, were all unequivocal, decided, outspoken Calvinists, 
and did not hesitate to bring out, defend, and apply their prin- 
ciples. Melancthon went from one extreme to another, and the 
cause of his deviations both from sound doctrine and sound practice 



190 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

on public questions, is plainly to be traced to weaknesses and 
infirmities, palpably discernible both in his mental and moral con- 
stitution. There is no evidence that Luther ever abandoned or 
retracted his Calvinism; but there are indications that, in the 
latter part of his life, he became, probably through Melancthon's 
influence, less anxious to give it prominence, and more concerned 
about guarding against the abuse of it. No other leading man 
among the Reformers went so far astray in doctrinal matters as 
Melancthon. Bullinger was a Calvinist, though a very cautious 
and moderate one, shrinking from some of the more precise and 
stringent statements of Calvin on particular points. He became 
more decided and outspoken in maintaining Calvinistic principles 
as he advanced in life, and as some indications appeared of differ- 
ences among Protestants themselves, of deviations tending in an 
anti-Calvinistic direction. We believe that Bullinger had more 
influence with the English Reformers, and upon the reformation 
they effected, than either Melancthon on the one side or Calvin 
on the other ; and whether it was because of influence exerted by 
him or not, the actual theological views adopted by Cranmer and 
embodied in the Articles, more nearly resembled, in point of fact, 
the opinions of Bullinger than those of any other eminent man of 
the period. 

It is quite true that Cranmer and his associates, who mainly 
determined the character of the English Reformation, were a good 
deal Melancthonian in their general character, tendencies, and sym- 
pathies. Cranmer resembled Melancthon both in his excellences 
and his defects, and would, we fear, in similar circumstances, have 
gone as far in sacrificing principle and in compromising truth, as 
Melancthon was ready to have done at the Diet of Augsburg in 
1530. Indeed it is, and will always remain, something of a mys- 
tery, how Cranmer contrived to thread his way through the rocks 
and quicksands of Henry's reign, without sacrificing his integrity. 
The English Reformers were, upon the whole, cautious and 
timid men, who leaned decidedly to the side of peace, quietness, * 
compromise, and who were trained by their peculiar, and in many 
respects unfavourable, circumstances, to the habit of avoiding, 
as far as possible, to give offence. There was a decided want of 
men among them who were possessed of a high and commanding 
order of intellect, or of the capacity of bold, vigorous, and inde- 
pendent thinking. There was not one man among them qualified, 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OP ENGLAND. 191 

by a combination of intellectual and moral qualities, to stamp his 
image, as an individual, upon his age or country. There is not one 
of them who has taken a high place or exerted a lasting influence 
as a theologian, in the exposition and discussion of important doc- 
trinal questions. There was no native Englishman of the period 
equal in point of ability and learning, as a theologian, to either of 
the two men, Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, whom Cranmer 
succeeded in getting over from the continent, — whom he placed 
in the most influential situations, the divinity chairs of Cambridge 
and Oxford, — with whom, during almost the whole reign of 
Edward, he was intimately associated, — who must have exerted a 
great influence over his mind, — and who were decided Calvinists. 
There is not one of those who acquired distinction in the church 
before the accession of Elizabeth who can be regarded as a first- 
class theologian. Bishop Jewel is the first Anglican churchman 
to whom he would be disposed to concede that title, and he, as was 
said by Froude, one of the founders of Puseyism, wrote " very 
much like an irreverent dissenter." Latimer and Hooper were 
excellent and most valuable men, great preachers, and eminently 
practical and useful, but they had neither capacity nor taste 
for the higher departments of theological speculation. Bishop 
Ridley had probably more influence with Cranmer, and was per- 
haps an abler man than either of them, but he was not a man of 
a high order of intellect ; and it was probably to this and to the 
want of any great familiarity with theological discussions, and not 
merely to a feeling of reverential modesty, that we owe his well- 
known statement about predestination and cognate topics : — " In 
these matters I am so fearful that I dare not speak further, yea, 
almost none otherwise, than the very text doth, as it were, lead 
me by the hand." There is an element of truth and beauty in 
this sentiment. But it is thoroughly one-sided ; it is wholly un- 
suitable to what has long been the actual condition of the church ; 
and in its practical application, it is chiefly to favour the supporters 
of error, those who find their advantage in confusion and obscurity. 
Ridley's notion sounds well, and is apt to make an impression at 
first upon the minds of men who have not examined the subject 
or studied its history. It might have been practicable and safe to 
act upon it, if errors and heresies had never arisen to disturb the 
peace and purity of the church. The great controversies of the 
fourth and fifth centuries against the Arians and Pelagians put 



192 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

an end to the condition of things in which it might have been 
possible to act npon Ridley's notion. This condition of things can 
never return, and it is now the church's imperative duty to seek, 
by turning Scripture to the fullest possible account, by bringing 
out and combining all that it teaches, explicitly or by good and 
necessary consequence, to unfold plainly and distinctly the whole 
scheme of divine truth, and to refute and expose the errors and 
heresies which may still be striving to gain an ascendency. 

The character and tendencies of Cranmer and Ridley, deter- 
mined to a large extent the general type of the English Reforma- 
tion. It was in the main cautious, timid, compromising. This 
applies to some extent even to its theology, but not to such an 
extent as to have made the theology Arminian, or even neutral, 
but only so far as to have made it moderate Calvinism. The 
proof that the great body of those who were concerned in pre- 
paring the English Articles in the reign of Edward, and in estab- 
lishing them again in the reign of Elizabeth, were in their own 
personal convictions Calvinists in doctrine, though averse to all 
extreme views, and to all strong and incautious statements, and 
anxious to guard against the practical abuse of their doctrines, is, 
we are persuaded, perfectly conclusive and unanswerable. As a 
whole, it cannot be touched ; and the evidence in support of this 
position is gaining in strength, and has gained in our own day, by 
the progress of research and investigation. We cannot, of course, 
pretend either to adduce the evidence, or to answer what has been 
brought forward on the other side. Those who wish to see this 
evidence fully adduced and cleared from objection, will find all 
this in the books already mentioned by Prynne, Hickman, Top- 
lady, Overton, and Goocle ; and if they are capable of estimating 
evidence, and possessed of a reasonable measure of impartiality 
and candour, they will not be moved by anything that has been 
produced upon the other side by Heylin, Winchester, Daubeny, 
Tomline, and Laurence. 

The Calvinism, however, of the fathers and founders of the 
Church of England, does not at once and ipso facto settle the 
Calvinism of the Articles and the Liturgy. It proves, indeed, that 
there is nothing anti-Calvinistic in the formularies of the church, 
and that no Calvinist need have any hesitation about approving 
of them, unless they could be shown to be palpably self -contradic- 
tory. But still it is possible, that, though Calvinists themselves, 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 193 

they may have abstained from making an explicit profession of 
Calvinism a term of communion. They may have intended to 
leave an open door both for Calvinists and Arminians, and with 
this view may have prepared their public symbols in such indefinite 
and ambiguous terms as would exclude neither, because they 
might be assented to by both. This is about as much as the more 
respectable Arminians venture to assert, and it is all to which 
they can manage to give anything like plausibility. We are not 
concerned to prove that Arminians cannot honestly subscribe the 
Articles. This is a question not so much for strangers, as for 
themselves and for their fellow-churchmen. But the ground 
taken by such men as Daubeny, Tomline, and Laurence, that the 
Articles are inconsistent with Calvinism, and must exclude all 
honest Calvinists, we cannot but protest against as an outrage 
upon historic truth. We have never been able to understand 
how any one but a Calvinist could comfortably subscribe the 
17th Article. But we have no wish to press this. We admit 
that it is very cautiously and temperately expressed, and that it 
would have been easy, if its compilers had so intended, to have 
made it more stringently, explicitly, and undeniably Calvinistic. 
What we maintain is, that its most natural and obvious meaning 
is Calvinistic, — th'at there is no evidence, internal or external, fitted 
to lead us to doubt that it teaches, and was intended to teach, 
Calvinism, — and that all the attempts which have been made to 
show that it is positively anti-Calvinistic, have been mere exhibi- 
tions of incompetency or of something worse. 

We can only make a few observations upon the 17th Article. 
The most important parts of the Article, the beginning and the 
end, are as follow : — 

" Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before 
the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His 
counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He 
hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to ever- 
lasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be 
endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose 
by His Spirit working in due season : they through grace obey the calling : 
they be justified freely : they be made sons of God by adoption : they be 
made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ : they walk 
religiously in good works; and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to 
everlasting felicity. 

" Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be 
VOL. I. 13 



194 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

generally set forth to us in holy Scripture, and in our doings that will of God 
is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of 
God." 

Now, the first reflection that occurs on reading this is, that 
there is not one word or phrase in it to which any Calvinist can 
object or ever has objected. Every Calvinist sees in it a plain 
and explicit statement of his fundamental principle, that God hath 
from eternity chosen some men in Christ, and resolved to deliver 
and save them, and that, in consequence of this election, these 
men, so chosen, are enabled to believe in Christ, are justified and 
regenerated, are enabled to lead holy lives, and are preserved unto 
salvation. This is plainly what the Article states, and this is just 
a simple unequivocal declaration of the fundamental, the only 
fundamental, principle of Calvinism. Calvinists could easily in- 
troduce certain expressions, suggested by later controversies and the 
sophisms and evasions to which they gave rise, which would make 
the Article more undeniably and exclusively Calvinistic ; but no 
one has ever felt the slightest difficulty about the statements, as 
plainly and obviously, without comment or explanation, teaching 
the Calvinistic doctrine of election. 

It has been strongly alleged by Arminians, that the caution or 
caveat contained in the last sentence is inconsistent with Calvin- 
istic opinions, and was intended to exclude them. But this is a 
sheer misrepresentation. No Calvinist has ever had the slightest 
difficulty about approving of this caveat, because it is quite 
notorious, that this mode of speaking is universal among Cal- 
vinistic divines in unfolding the practical application of their 
doctrine, — that the second part of the statement is given in the 
very words of Calvin himself, — and that the first part of it, too, is 
found in substance, though not verbatim, in his writings. No Cal- 
vinist can have any difficulty in showing the perfect consistency 
of this caveat with his doctrine concerning predestination. But 
no Arminian can give any intelligible reason why such a caveat 
should have been introduced, except in connection with a previous 
statement of Calvinistic predestination. It is only the Calvinistic, 
and not the Arminian, doctrine that suggests or requires such 
guards or caveats ; and it is plainly impossible that such a state- 
ment could ever have occurred to the compilers of the Articles as 
proper and necessary, unless they had been distinctly aware, that 
they had just laid down a statement which at least included the 



Ess-VY IV.] THE CHUKCH OF ENGLAND. 195 

Calvinistic doctrine. Calvinists have always regarded it as a 
strong confirmation of their doctrine, that the Apostle Paul so 
plainly intimates, that he expected that almost as a matter of 
course, men would adduce against his doctrine the same objections 
which have, in every age, been adduced against Calvinism, but 
which nobody would ever think of adducing against Arminianism. 
Upon the same principle, the caveat introduced into the end of 
the 17th Article is a plain proof that the Calvinistic doctrine was 
at least included in the preceding statements. The common 
allegation that this caveat excludes Calvinism is purely ridiculous. 
While Calvinists find nothing in the 17th Article but what is 
in full accordance with their ordinary train of thinking, and with 
the usual language of their most eminent writers, Arminians are 
obliged to distort and pervert it. Bishop Tomline, in his Elements 
of Christian Theology, does it in this way: * 

" Those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, are that part of 
mankind to whom God decreed to make known the gospel ; and it is to be 
observed that this expression does not distinguish one set of Christians from 
another, but Christians in general from the rest of mankind ; and, conse- 
quently, 'to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation,' does not mean 
actually saving them, but granting them the means of salvation through 
Christ." 

This surely ought to repel and disgust honest men, and yet it 
is in substance the interpretation which must be put upon the 
Article, as well as upon the statements of Scripture, by the Armi- 
nians. Sometimes the idea is put in a more gross and offensive 
form, as when Dean Kipling, in discussing this subject, lays it 
down as the doctrine of the founders of the Church of England, 
that " every person is an elect, whom some duly authorized 
minister of the gospel has baptized in the Christian faith ;"f and 
sometimes it is glossed over with more skill and plausibility, as by 
Archbishop Laurence in his " Bampton Lectures." But the lead- 
ing idea is the same : "chosen in Christ" means, chosen as Chris- 
tians, i.e. chosen to enjoy the outward privileges of the church ; 
and as to God's having decreed to deliver them from curse and 
damnation, and to bring them by Christ to eternal salvation, this 
just means that God decreed to give to them the enjoyment of 
the outward means of grace, the final result being left entirely 



* Yol. ii. p. 301. t P. 86. 



196 



MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 



dependent upon themselves, upon their improvement of their 
privileges. 

Laurence dwells at considerable length upon the expression 
" chosen in Christ" and labours to show that this was intended 
to support Arminianism and to exclude Calvinism, alleging that 
the expression was selected for the purpose of intimating that 
" God predestinated His elect in Christ, or the Christian church, 
to salvation," — that the only election is, "the election of a collective 
mass on account of Christ," — and that He " predestinates to the 
adoption of children, those who duly receive and apply the means 
of salvation which He has thus gratuitously provided for them."* 
The argument founded upon the expression " chosen in Christ" 
the only thing in the leading section of the Article alleged to 
have the appearance of being anti-Calvinistic, can be easily 
disposed of. 

1st, In the clause " whom He hath chosen in Christ out of 
mankind," the words " in Christ" alleged to teach the Arminian 
notion of the election of the visible church to the outward means 
of grace as being the only election, were added on the revision of 
the Articles in Elizabeth's reign, in 1562, having formed no part of 
the Article as it was prepared in Edward's reign. But the insertion 
of these words could not have been intended to serve an Arminian 
purpose, for it is notorious, and is generally conceded by our 
opponents, that most of those who had the management of the 
ecclesiastical affairs in Elizabeth's reign were decided Calvinists, 
even when this is not conceded in regard to Cranmer and his 
associates. This concession indeed could not decently be refused, 
when it is notorious that in 1562, immediately after the Articles 
as they now stand had been passed in Convocation, Bishop Jewel 
wrote to Peter Martyr, then at Zurich, in the following terms : — 
" As to matters of doctrine, we have pared everything away to 
the very quick, and do not differ from your doctrine by a nail's 
breadth."! 

2d, The phrase "chosen in Christ" is a scriptural expres- 



* Pp. 161, 168-9. Goodehas dis- 
tinctly charged Laurence with assert- 
ing that "the doctrine of our church 
is, that the elect people of God are all 
the baptized," and with making the 
"monstrous statement, that all in the 
visible church are to be considered as 



the elect" (pp. 54, 90) ; and this. charge 
is undoubtedly true in substance, 
though Laurence has not perhaps 
brought out his notion quite so fully 
and explicitly. 

f Zurich Letters, 1st series, p. 59. 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 197 

sion ; and as the Calvinists of course think that they can interpret 
it in entire accordance with their theological views, it is just as 
unwarrantable to infer Armfcnianism, as it would be to infer 
Calvinism, from the mere adoption of it. 

3d, The expression is used in the whole series of undeniably 
Calvinistic confessions, both in those prepared before and after 
the Arminian controversy — in the Scottish Confession of 1560, as 
well as in the Westminster one, in the French, Belgic, and Hel- 
vetic, and in the canons of the Synod of Dort. 

All these things are quite notorious, and they are perfectly 
conclusive against Laurence's argument ; but the Anglican anti- 
Calvinists seem to be ignorant enough of theology, to look upon 
him as an oracle, and to believe such statements as these because 
he makes them. The truth is, that the first attempt to employ this 
expression in a controversial way for Arminian purposes, was 
made by the Lutherans, when, in the latter part of the sixteenth 
century, they were shuffling out of the Calvinism of their master. 
They wished still to maintain, if they could, that election was gra- 
tuitous, — a position which even Melancthon held to the last, — and 
that it was not to be traced to anything in men themselves. These 
positions of course cannot be held intelligently and consistently 
by any but Calvinists. But first the Lutherans, and afterwards 
Arminius, attempted to involve this whole matter in obscurity 
and confusion, by representing Christ as the cause and foundation 
of election, and by trying to show that this implied, that men were 
elected as Christians, or because of their relation to Christ. 
Calvinists had no difficulty in showing the sophistical and evasive 
character of this attempt, and proving that under a profession of 
honouring Christ, it assigned to Him a place in the scheme of 
salvation which Scripture does not sanction; and that in so far 
as men are concerned, it plainly implied, when stripped of the 
vagueness and confusion thrown around it, either, that election 
is only to the outward privileges of the church, or that, if it be 
supposed to refer to eternal life, it is based upon a foresight of 
men's faith, — that is, that it is not gratuitous, but really founded 
upon something in men themselves. The exposure of this 
Lutheran and Arminian sophistry produced some interesting, 
though occasionally rather intricate, discussion, on topics which 
seem to be utterly unknown among the Anglican Arminians, but 
which are now T quite indispensable to a thorough acquaintance 



198 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

with the subject, and of which a masterly summary is given in 
Turretine's Theolos. Elenct.* 

CD 

There is nothing, then, in the*17th Article, but what in its 
natural and obvious meaning is most fully accordant with Cal- 
vinism, and seems to have been intended to teach the fundamental 
principle of that system of theology, while the attempts which 
have been made to disprove this, and to bring in an Arminian 
interpretation of it, can be shown to be utterly unsuccessful. 

This is quite sufficient to establish the Calvinism of the Article, 
especially when viewed in connection with the known sentiments 
of its compilers. But the evidence is further strengthened by 
comparing it with the section on predestination in the later editions 
of " Melancthon's Commonplaces." All who deny the Calvinism 
of the Article maintain that it was derived from Melancthon's 
writings, and was intended to embody the views which he came 
ultimately to adopt. But we think it scarcely possible for any 
one at all versant in these matters, to compare the Article with 
Melancthon's section on predestination, without seeing a marked 
contrast between them. We cannot give quotations, or go into 
any detail upon this point; but we think it manifest that the 17th 
Article is much more clearly and explicitly Calvinistic, or rather 
is much more like, and comes much more near to, Calvinism, 
than anything to be found in Melancthon's later writings. If the 
compilers of the Articles had really meant to leave the only ques- 
tion of fundamental importance on the subject of predestination 
undecided, — and this, as we have said, is about as much as the more 
respectable defenders of Arminianism usually venture to allege, — 
they had before them, in the section upon this subject in the later 
editions of "Melancthon's Commonplaces," a very fair attempt at 
saying nothing — that is, at professing to explain the matter without 
decidedly and explicitly taking either side. But they did not take 
this course ; for the 17th Article is, to say the very least, not nearly 
so obscure and ambiguous as the exposition of Melancthon ; from 
which the inference is plain, that though on some points they may 
have followed Melancthon, they here put themselves under the 
surer and steadier guidance of Calvin, or at least of Bullinger. 

Arminians, in discussing this subject, usually try to take ad- 
vantage of the concession, which we cannot withhold from them, 



Loc. iv. Qu. x. 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 199 

that the founders of the Church of England were moderate, as dis- 
tinguished from extreme or ultra Calvinists, and that the doctrine 
of the Article is moderate Calvinism. They are disposed to scout 
the idea of moderate Calvinism as an inconsistency and absurdity, 
— to insinuate that men should not be held to be Calvinists at all 
unless they have embraced all the points of the system in its most 
detailed and developed form, — and to allege that since this is 
not true of the Anglican Reformers, they should not be regarded 
as Calvinists. This whole notion is plainly exaggerated and un- 
tenable, and confounds things that differ. It is quite warrantable 
and fair to press men with the consequences or results of the prin- 
ciples they profess, in order to show them that, in right reason, 
they ought either to abandon their principles, or else embrace the 
ulterior views to which they can be shown legitimately to lead. 
But it is unwarrantable to draw inferences as to what, in point 
of fact, men's principles are, from our views of what consistency 
would seem to require of them. Men are not to be disbelieved 
when, they tell us, as a matter of fact, that in their convictions 
they have come thus far, but that they stop here, merely because 
we think that either they should not have come so far, or that, if 
they did, they should have advanced farther. The subject we are 
at present considering is essentially a matter of fact, — a question 
as to what views certain men did embrace and profess, — and it 
should be determined by the ordinary evidence applicable to such 
a matter of fact, viz. the statements and procedure of the parties 
themselves, and not by any inferences and deductions of ours, in 
the soundness of which they do not acquiesce. These Anglican 
Arminians, most of whom have given abundant evidence that 
they do not understand what Calvinism is, presume to set up an 
arbitrary standard of Calvinism ; and if men do not come up to 
this standard, they infer, not merely that they are not Calvinists, 
>ut that they do not in point of fact hold, whatever they may pro- 
fess, any of the leading doctrines usually regarded as Calvinistic. 
All this is utterly unwarrantable and extravagant, and it is the 
lore so when we have to deal, as in this case, not merely with the 
>ersonal convictions of individuals, but with the public formularies 
which they prepared for the church. The same qualities and 
influences which made Cranmer and his associates only moderate 
Calvinists, in their own personal convictions, were likely to operate 
still more powerfully when they were preparing public documents 



200 



MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 



for the church, to which other men were to be required to assent. 
Here it is quite natural to expect, that they would be still more 
moderate Calvinists than they were in their own individual con- 
victions.* All this is quite natural and intelligible, and it affords 
no reasonable ground for doubting, that as individuals they 
honestly and sincerely held all the Calvinism which, by their state- 
ments and actions, they have professed, or that they really meant 
to embody in the formularies of the church all the Calvinism 
which is there indicated. Moderate Calvinism, as distinguished 
from Calvinism of a more definite and detailed description, may be 
an indication of something defective in men's mental and moral 
capacities or tendencies, or it may be traceable to some qualities 
and feelings, good and creditable in the main, but carried out 
to an unwarrantable excess. But this is no reason why men 
should have ascribed to them inferences and deductions from their 
principles which they do not themselves perceive or admit, or 
should have any doubt thrown upon the trustworthiness of their 
professions as to what they do hold. 

For ourselves, we do not affect the designation of moderate 
Calvinists. We believe the whole Calvinism of the canons of 
the Synod of Dort, and of the Confession of the Westminster 
Assembly, and we are willing to attempt to expound and defend, 
when called upon, the whole doctrine of these symbols, to show 
that it is all taught or indicated in Scripture. We have been only 
confirmed in our Calvinism by all the study we have given to this 
subject. But while our own personal convictions of the truth of 



* It is common in works intended 
to disprove the Calvinism of the 
17th Article, to give numerous and 
lengthened extracts from Calvin. One- 
fourth part of the whole of Win- 
chester's pamphlet upon the subject, 
and one-third of Kipling's, is made 
up in this way. This has a great 
appearance of fairness, but it is really 
a controversial artifice. It is intended 
to deepen the impression of the discre- 
pancy between Calvin and the Article, 
though there is no fair comparison 
between a brief summary statement 
of a doctrine intended for a public 
formulary, and the minute details, 
perhaps incautious and exaggerated 
expressions, that are to be expected 



in elaborate expositions and defences 
of the doctrine, prepared by an in- 
dividual, and intended merely for 
general perusal. The question is not, 
whether the compilers of the Articles 
agreed in all respects with Calvin as 
an individual, but whether they pro- 
fessed the fundamental principles of 
the system of theology usually called 
after his name. The only fair com- 
parison is between the 17th Article 
and the statements on predestination 
contained in the Calvinistic confessions 
prepared about the same time ; and 
here certainly there is no incon- 
sistency, scarcely even an apparent 
discrepancy. 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 201 

a fully developed Calvinism have become confirmed by continued 
study, we have at the same time, and by the same process, been 
taught a larger measure of forbearance towards those who differ 
from us on some of the questions connected with these profound 
and mysterious subjects, — and especially towards those who do not 
see their way to go so far as we think warrantable, in explaining 
and defining some points, and who, while, it may be, not explicitly 
denying what we believe to be true, yet rather shrink from the 
more detailed and definite explanations which we regard as true 
and warrantable. The more we have studied these subjects, 
the more have we become convinced, that the one fundamental 
principle of Calvinism, — that the admission or denial of which 
constitutes the real line of demarcation between Calvinists and 
anti-Calvinists, is the doctrine of predestination in the more limited 
sense of the word, or of election, as descriptive of the substance 
of the teaching of Scripture with regard to what God decreed or 
purposed from eternity to do, and does or effects in time, for the 
salvation of those who are saved ; and that every man ought to be 
held by others, and ought to acknowledge himself, to be a Calvin- 
ist, who believes that God from eternity chose some men, certain 
persons of the human race, absolutely and unconditionally, to 
salvation through Christ, and that He accomplishes this purpose, 
or executes this decree in time, by effecting and securing the salva- 
tion of these, men in accordance with the provisions of the covenant 
of grace. Of all the doctrines usually discussed between Calvinists 
and Arminians, and commonly held by Calvinists to be taught in 
Scripture, this doctrine of election is at once the most important 
in itself, and the most clearly revealed in God's word. In regard 
to the other doctrines of the Calvinistic system of theology, as 
set forth by the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly, 
we believe, 1st, That they can be all sufficiently and satisfactorily 
established by scriptural evidence bearing directly upon each 
particular topic ; and 2d, That they may be all legitimately and 
conclusively deduced in the way of consequence or inference from 
the great doctrine of election. It is men's duty to ascertain what 
God has revealed upon all these matters in His word, and to 
exercise their rational faculties in estimating and developing the 
logical relations of these doctrines with each other. And, for 
ourselves, we have no doubt that the full legitimate use and 
improvement of the word of God and of our rational faculties, 



202 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

ought to lead men to the firm belief and the open maintenance of 
the doctrines generally held by Calvinists, with regard to what 
is commonly, though improperly, called reprobation, the nature 
and extent of the atonement, the certain and insuperable efficacy 
of grace, and the final perseverance of all believers. We believe 
that when men deny, or even decline or refuse to profess, the 
doctrines generally held by Calvinists upon these subjects, they 
are in so far to be held as coming short in the discharge of their 
duty and the improvement of their privileges in regard to the 
truth of God, But we are disposed to practise more of indulgence 
and forbearance towards perplexities and confusions, or even 
positive errors, on these questions, than on the great fundamental 
principle of election, partly because of the difference among them 
in respect of intrinsic importance, and partly because of the 
difference in the clearness and fulness of the Scripture evidences 
by which they are supported. 

At present, however, we have to do, not with abstract specula- 
tions, but with the construction of evidence bearing upon a matter 
of fact, viz. what opinions were actually held by certain parties. 
The general allegation here is, that the founders of the Church of 
England were not Calvinists ; and one reason adduced in support 
of it is, that while there may be some ground for holding that they 
believed in the Calvinistic doctrine of election, they did not believe 
in certain other doctrines which have been usually regarded as 
necessary parts of the Calvinistic system of theology. And our 
general answer, based upon the grounds already referred to, is, 
that it is unwarrantable to draw inferences as to what men's 
opinions in point of fact are, from what consistency on their part 
seems to us to require ; and that we not only acknowledge, but 
must claim, every man as a Calvinist who believes in the Calvin- 
istic doctrine of election, even though, from disadvantages and 
drawbacks in some of the features of his mental and moral consti- 
tution, or of his position and opportunities, he may be involved in 
perplexity and confusion, or even positive error, in regard to some 
of the other doctrines usually held by Calvinists. This is a suffi- 
cient answer to the argument in general ; and when we examine 
the special grounds by which the general position is commonly 
supported, we find that they can be shown to be irrelevant, inac- 
curate, and inconclusive. We can only refer to them, and that 
only in their purely historical aspects, as bearing upon the matter 



Essay IV]. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 203 

of fact which we have been investigating. They are chiefly 
these : — 

I. The 17th Article, it is said, cannot be Calvinistic, because 
it contains nothing whatever about reprobation, which is alleged 
to be an essential part of the Calvinistic system. Reprobation 
properly means a statement of the doctrine of Scripture as to what 
God purposed from eternity, and does in time, in regard to those 
men who ultimately perish. Now, every Calvinist admits, that 
there is comparatively little indicated in Scripture concerning this 
awful and mysterious subject, and that what can be known about 
it must be partly learned in the way of inference and deduction, 
from the much clearer and fuller information given in Scripture 
concerning God's purposes and procedure in regard to those who 
are saved. This consideration shows the unworthy and dishonour- 
able character of the efforts usually made by Arminians to thrust 
in the discussion of reprobation before that of election, notwith- 
standing that the latter is both much more important in itself, and 
much more fully revealed in Scripture, than the former. But this 
consideration also shows how probable it is, that men of a timid 
and cautious temperament, though firmly believing in the doctrine 
of election, might not hold themselves called upon to say anything 
about reprobation, especially when preparing public formularies. 
This idea was acted upon at that period by men who were un- 
doubtedly Calvinists. There is no statement of reprobation in 
the Scottish Confession of 1560, or in the Second Helvetic of 
1566, which was approved of by almost all the Reformed churches, 
though the authors of these documents were decided Calvinists, 
and the documents themselves are undoubtedly Calvinistic. This 
topic is stated very briefly and compendiously even in the French 
and Belgic Confessions ; and it was only the perverse, offensive, 
and discreditable conduct of the Arminians at the Synod of Dort, 
in thrusting this topic into prominence and priority, that rendered 
it necessary for the church to put forth a somewhat fuller state- 
ment of its nature and position. It is indeed the proceedings 
of heretics that have all along, and in every age,. produced and 
necessitated the more full and detailed explanations and definitions 
which the church has been led to put forth. And one reason why 
heretics have such a bitter hatred of these explanations and defini- 
tions is, because they feel that in this way their errors are exposed, 
and grave suspicions are sometimes excited as to their integrity. 



204 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OP [Essay IV. 

But we have said more than enough to show that the omission 
of any mention of reprobation affords no presumption against the 
Calvinism of the 17th Article. 

II. Another favourite allegation of the Arminians upon this 
subject is, that the Articles and Liturgy cannot be Calvinistic, 
because they teach the doctrine of universal redemption, and this 
entirely precludes Calvinism. This topic is thus put by Water- 
land, in a passage which has been often quoted or referred to since 
by controversialists on the same side, and which is a fair enough 
specimen of the accuracy of the facts and the conclusiveness of 
the reasonings prevalent in that class of writers : — " In the year 
1618, our divines at the Synod of Dort had commission to insist 
upon the doctrine of universal redemption as the doctrine of the 
Church of England, which one doctrine, pursued in its just con- 
sequences, is sufficient to overthrow the whole Calvinian system 
of the five points." * 

Now, the assertion that the English divines at the Synod of Dort 
had commission to insist upon the doctrine of universal redemp- 
tion is not true, though it is not wholly destitute of a colourable 
pretext. No such commission or instruction was given to them, 
or was acted on by them, though some of them were favourable 
to that doctrine. And Waterland, we believe, could have pro- 
duced, if called upon, no direct authority for the statement, except 
an unsupported assertion of Heylin's. The futility of the argu- 
ment drawn from this doctrine against the Calvinism of the Church 
of England, will appear from the following considerations : — 

1. This doctrine of universal redemption is of such a nature 
that, as experience proves, it is easy to produce abundance of 
quotations that seem to assert it, and that do assert something 
like it, from authors who did not believe it, and never intended 
to teach it. 

2. A great variety of doctrines pass currently under the general 
name of universal redemption, graduating from the grosser form, 
which would exclude not only all Calvinistic principles, but all 
right conceptions of a vicarious atonement, even as held pro- 
fessedly by Arminians themselves, to the comparatively harmless 
form, in which it seems to be little else than an unwarranted and 
exaggerated mode of embodying the truth, that the offers and 



Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscription Works, vol. ii. p. 348. 



Essay IV.] 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 



205 



invitations of the gospel are to be addressed to all men, to men 
indiscriminately without distinction or exception. 

3. It is perfectly certain that a considerable number of eminent 
divines, who undoubtedly believed the whole of what is usually 
held by Calvinists, both in regard to election and reprobation, 
have professed to maintain the doctrine of universal redemption. 
This does not afford a presumption that the doctrine is true, but 
it furnishes a proof that the fact that men hold it is no evidence 
that they are not Calvinists. This statement applies to Cameron 
and Amyraut, to Daillee and Claude, to Davenant and Baxter; 
and to come down to our own times, to Thomas Scott and Ralph 
Wardlaw. We have never been at all impressed with the reason- 
ings of these men in favour of universal redemption ; but we 
cannot, because of what we reckon their error upon the subject, 
consent to their being handed over to the Arminians. 

Waterland's statement is peculiarly inexcusable, because the 
mention of the Synod of Dort ought to have suggested to him the 
name of Bishop Davenant, and he ought to have known that we 
have a work of Davenant's entitled, " Dissertationes Duse prima 
de Morte Christi, altera de Prsedestinatione et Reprobatione ;" 
and that, while the first of these is a very able defence of the 
doctrine of universal redemption, as it has been usually held by 
men who professed Calvinistic views upon other points, the second 
is a most thorough and masterly exposition and defence of the 
views ordinarily held by Calvinists in regard to election and 
reprobation. Indeed, we do not believe that there exists a better 
or more satisfactory vindication of the Calvinistic doctrine of 
predestination, in both its branches of election and reprobation, 
than the second of these two Dissertations.* 

III. The third and last of the positions sometimes taken up 
by those who deny the Calvinism of the English Articles and 
Liturgy is, that these formularies are opposed to the doctrine of 
the certain perseverance of all believers or saints, and that this 



* Davenant's "Animadversions" on 
Hoard's " God's Love to Mankind" is 
better known, and displays the same 
high qualities. But so far as general 
impression and effect are concerned, 
it has the great disadvantage of being 
literally a reply to Hoard's treatise, 
the whole of which is inserted, and 



then answered step by step ; whereas 
the " Dissertation on Predestination 
and Eeprobation" is a formal discus- 
sion, scientifically and scholastically 
digested and arranged, and taking up 
the different branches of the subjects 
in their due logical order. 



206 



MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 



doctrine is a necessary part of Calvinism. It is certainly a neces- 
sary part of Calvinism, that all those whom God has absolutely 
chosen to salvation shall be saved ; and no man ever held the 
Calvinistic doctrine of election without believing this. But this 
is not the question that is discussed in connection with the views 
of some of the early English divines about perseverance or 
apostasy. They all admitted that all the elect would certainly 
persevere, and could not fall away; but some of them seem to 
have held that some men, though not elected to salvation, might 
attain to faith and conversion, and yet, because not elected, might 
fall away and finally perish. 

It has been alleged that the 16th Article of the Church of 
England sanctions this view, and we admit that there is a good 
deal to countenance it in Augustine. There is no real difficulty 
in the 16th Article, which Calvinists have always subscribed with- 
out hesitation, as being true so far as it goes, and as not contra- 
dicting any of their principles. Augustine's error and confusion 
upon this subject seems to be traceable in some measure to his 
having embraced, more or less fully and explicitly, the mischievous 
heresy of baptismal regeneration ; and it is probably owing to the 
same cause that there have always been, from the time of Bishop 
Overall down to the present day, some highly respected Anglican 
divines who preferred the opinion of Augustine to that of Calvin 
in regard to the possible apostasy of some who had been brought 
to faith and repentance, while agreeing with them both in main- 
taining the great principle, that God from eternity chose some 
men, certain persons, to salvation, and that in carrying out this 
electing purpose He effects and secures the salvation of every one 
of those whom He has chosen in Christ.* It is quite unwarrant- 
able to represent this as a difference of vital importance between 
Augustine and Calvin, in relation to the great distinctive features 
of the theological system which they held in common, and which 
they have done more than any uninspired men to commend to the 
acceptance of the people of God. And it is deserving of special 
notice, that on this particular point Cranmer followed Calvin, and 
not Augustine;! so that we have the fullest and most direct 



* A very good specimen of this may 
be found in a work entitled, " The 
Union between Christ and His People, 
four Sermons preached before the 
University of Oxford," by Dr Heurt- 



ley, the present able, excellent, and 
accomplished Margaret Professor of 
Divinity there, 
f Goode, p. 52. 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. . 207 

authority for maintaining, that nothing of an anti-Calvinistic 
complexion upon the subject of perseverance or apostasy is, in so 
far as the intention of the compilers is concerned, to be found in 
the Anglican formularies. 

We have spoken strongly as to the futility of the arguments 
derived from these subjects of reprobation, universal redemption, 
and perseverance, in support of the alleged matter of fact of the 
anti-Calvinism of the Anglican formularies ; for it is, we think, 
very clear and certain, that no considerations deduced from these 
topics can be of any avail in weakening the evidence for, or in 
strengthening the evidence against, the position, that these sym- 
bols teach, and were intended to teach, the fundamental principles 
of the Calvinistic system of theology. But while we cannot allow 
that there is any difficulty whatever in disposing of the attempts 
to refute the historical proof of the doctrinal Calvinism of the 
Church of England, by inferences derived from these doctrines, 
we willingly admit that these doctrines in themselves, viewed in 
their nature and meaning, in their evidence and application, and 
in their relation to each other, and to the scheme of divine truth 
as a whole, involve profound and inscrutable mysteries. They 
lead at once into the most arduous and difficult questions with 
which the mind of man has every grappled. The investigation of 
the doctrines of reprobation, universal redemption, and persever- 
ance, requires us to grapple with the most arduous and difficult of 
all topics in the fields both of scriptural exegesis and theological 
speculation ; and no one has ever prosecuted this investigation 
in a right and becoming spirit without having been impressed 
with a sense of the profound difficulties attaching to it, and with- 
out being led in consequence to regard differences of opinion on 
some points with forbearance and kindly consideration, however 
decided may have been the conclusions to which he himself has 
come. 

Still men should ascertain and profess the whole of what is 
taught or indicated on these subjects in Scripture, and they should 
not allow mere caution or timidity, or any other feeling or motive, 
even though it should assume the form of reverence or modesty, 
to interfere with the discharge of this duty. While reticence, 
perplexity, confusion, and even positive error upon some of the 
features of these profound and solemn subjects may be treated 
with forbearance, all due allowances being made for peculiarities 



208 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

in men's constitution and circumstances, they should never be 
approved of or encouraged. Men should be warned of these 
shortcomings and infirmities, and exhorted to guard against them. 
We are persuaded that there are many of the evangelical clergy 
in the Church of England, who come far short of doing justice to 
God's truth in these matters, nay, come far short even of what 
their own convictions, defective and confused as they often are, 
should lead them to do. There are not a few of the evangelical 
clergy, men of genuine and elevated piety, and faithful and 
devoted ministers, who, while really believing in the Calvinistic 
doctrine of election, seem to shrink from making an explicit public 
profession of their judgment, or from giving it anything like 
prominence. We suspect that in some instances they are half 
afraid to think, or read, or speak about the subject of election, lest 
they should be led to form, or should be suspected of having 
formed, definite or decided opinions on what are reckoned the 
higher or more mysterious departments of the subject connected 
with reprobation, the extent of redemption, and the certainty of 
perseverance. Whatever may be the precise cause of this mode 
of acting, and whatever the precise forms it may assume in 
different individuals, it is a great weakness and infirmity, and it 
involves or produces a neglect or disregard of the duty they owe 
to God's truth, and to God's cause on earth as virtually identified 
with the proclamation or diffusion of His truth. From the number 
and variety of the grounds on which men of this class, who are 
substantially Calvinists at heart and in their own convictions, 
labour to excuse themselves from openly and explicitly admitting 
and proclaiming this, — ranging from the elevated sophistry of men 
of high intellect and learning like Mr Mozley, down to the mawkish 
sentimentality of the weakest of the brethren, — it would almost 
seem as if an open profession of Calvinism still led, in the Church 
of England, to something like martyrdom. We fear that some of 
the evangelical clergy, who are really Calvinists in substance and 
at heart, are deficient in the manly, outspoken independence and 
courageous integrity of the Newtons and Scotts of a former genera- 
tion. We believe that it would advance the peace of mind of 
many of these excellent men, and increase their efficiency and 
usefulness as preachers of the gospel and defenders of God's 
truth, if they would bring out their theological convictions more 
definitely and prominently, — if, by a deeper study of these subjects, 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 209 

they were led to form, and if, by a deeper sense of the responsi- 
bility connected with this department of the duty of Christian 
ministers, they were led to profess more detailed and definite views 
of doctrine, and thus to identify themselves more cordially and 
avowedly with the leading principles of that system of theology 
which has been embraced in substance by a large proportion of 
the ablest and best men that have ever adorned the Church of 
Christ, — which was adopted by the whole body of the Reformers 
with scarcely a single exception, and even by those timid and 
cautious men who presided over the reformation of the Church of 
England, and prepared her authorized formularies. 

We believe that one reason why so many of the evangelical 
clergy rest contented with very obscure and indefinite views upon 
many theological subjects is, that, from a variety of causes, they 
are led to shrink from investigating them ; and that their Cal- 
vinism, such as it is, is to be traced, not to a careful study of the 
subject, or the exercise of their mental powers, but rather to their 
own personal experience. There is not a converted and believing 
man on earth, in whose conscience there does not exist at least 
the germ, or embryo, of a testimony in favour of the substance 
of the Calvinistic doctrine of election. This testimony may be 
misunderstood, or perverted, or suppressed ; but it exists in the 
ineradicable sense which every converted man has, that if God 
had not chosen him, he never would have chosen God, and that if 
God, by His Spirit, had not exerted a decisive and determining 
influence in the matter, he never would have been turned from 
darkness to light, and been led to embrace Christ as his Saviour. 
This is really the sum and substance of Calvinism. It is just the 
intelligent and hearty ascription of the entire, undivided glory of 
their salvation, by all who are saved, to the sovereign purpose, the 
infinite merit, and the almighty agency of God, — the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost. And all that Calvinists ask is, that 
men who have been constrained to believe, and feel this to be true 
in surveying the way by which God has led them, would embody 
their convictions in distinct and definite propositions ; and that 
finding these propositions fully supported by the sacred Scriptures, 
they would profess and proclaim them as a portion of God's 
revealed truth. 

There is, indeed, a vast amount of evidence that can be 
adduced in favour of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, when 

VOL. I. 14 



210 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. 

this doctrine is looked at nakedly and by itself, — evidence from 
Scripture, reason, and experience, — evidence which is fitted to 
impress, and has impressed, equally men of the highest and most 
soaring intellect, and of the most devoted and childlike piety. 
But at present we have to do not with arguments and proofs, but 
only with authorities and testimonies ; and on this subject the 
general position we are anxious to impress is this, that in favour of 
the Calvinistic- doctrine of election, as descriptive of the substance 
of what Scripture teaches with respect to the divine purposes and 
procedure in regard to the salvation of those who are saved, there 
is a mass of testimonies in the experiences, convictions, and im- 
pressions of religious men, greatly superior both in amount and 
value to what may appear upon a superficial view of the matter. 
These testimonies, indeed, are often clouded and obscured, brought 
out in a very vague and imperfect way, and enveloped in much 
darkness and confusion. But still, viewed collectively and in the 
mass, and estimated fairly in a survey of the history of the church 
and of the experience of God's people, they do furnish a powerful 
confirmation to the proper proofs from Scripture and reason, for 
the Calvinistic representation of what God purposes and does for 
the salvation of His chosen. 

And with respect to that department of the general subject on 
which not Calvinists but Arminians are so fond of enlarging, viz. 
the purposes and procedure of God in regard to those of the 
human race who ultimately perish, Calvinists undertake to show 
— 1st, That they only follow, humbly and reverentially, the imper- 
fect indications given us in Scripture on this profoundly mys- 
terious subject ; 2c?, That while desirous to dwell chiefly upon the 
subject of election, as being both more important in itself, and 
more fully and clearly set before us in Scripture, they have been 
compelled, by the perverse and vexatious importunity of their 
opponents, to give more prominence to the subject of reprobation 
than they had themselves any desire to give it ; and 3d, That the 
inscrutable mysteries attaching to this subject, apply in reality not 
to the Calvinistic representation of it, but to the actual realities 
of the case, — to facts which all parties admit, and which all are 
equally bound and equally unable to explain, — the facts, namely, 
of the fall of the whole human race into an estate of sin and 
misery, and of this fearful state becoming permanent in regard 
to a portion of the race ; in other words, the one great fact of the 



Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 211 

existence and the permanence of moral evil among God's rational 
and responsible creatures. 

The Bible assumes or asserts, while it scarcely professes to 
explain, these two great facts of the fall of the whole human race 
into a state of sin and misery, and of the result that a portion of 
the race is to be left for ever in that condition. But its leading- 
primary object is to unfold the great scheme of mercy by which 
God has effectually provided for the salvation from this state of 
sin and misery of an innumerable multitude, which, for anything 
that has been made known to us, may, in the ultimate result of 
things, comprehend a great majority of the descendants of Adam. 
God has devised such a scheme as this, to the praise of the glory 
of His grace. He has made it known to us, that we may share 
in its blessings, that we may attain to salvation ourselves, — may 
assist, as the instruments, in His hand, in promoting the salvation 
of our fellow-men, — and may be prepared for ascribing, with all 
our hearts, in time and through eternity, glory and honour and 
blessing to Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in 
His own blood, and made us kings and priests unto God and His 
Father. 



ZWINGLE 



DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, 



It is a very common practice of Popish writers to represent 
Protestantism and the Reformation as thoroughly identified with 
Luther, with his character, opinions, labours, and achievements. 
Protestantism, according to a mode of representation in which 
they are fond of indulging, and which is not destitute of a certain 
measure of plausibility, is a new religion, never heard of till it was 
invented by Luther, and traceable to him alone as its source and 
origin. Having thus identified the Reformation and Protestantism 
with Luther, they commonly proceed to give an account of him 
whom they represent as the author of our faith, bringing out, with 
great distortion and exaggeration, everything about his character 
and history, about his sayings and doings, which may be fitted 
to excite a prejudice against him, especially as contemplated in 
the light in which they, not we, represent him, viz. as the author 
and founder of a new religious system. Independently of the 
utterly unfounded and erroneous assumptions in point of prin- 
ciple and argument on which this whole representation is based, 
it is altogether untrue as a mere historical fact, that Luther 
occupied any such place in regard to the Reformation and Protes- 
tantism, as Papists — for controversial purposes — are accustomed 
to assign to him. He was not the only person who was raised up 
at that period to oppose the Church of Rome, and to bring out 



British and Foreign Evangelical Review, October 1860. 



Essay V.] THE DOCTEINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 213 

from the word of God other representations of apostolic Chris- 
tianity than those which the Papacy inculcated and embodied. 
It is quite certain that, in different parts of Europe, a considerable 
number of persons, as early as Luther and altogether indepen- 
dently of him, had been led to deduce from the sacred Scriptures 
doctrines substantially the same as his, even the doctrines which 
may be said to constitute the fundamental principles of Protestan- 
tism. In France, Lefevre and Farel, of whom so very interesting 
an account is given by Dr 'Merle D'Aubigne in the twelfth book 
of his "History of the Eef ormation," * had been led to adopt, 
and to promulgate, to a certain extent, the leading doctrines of 
the Reformation before Luther appeared publicly as a Reformer ; 
and they certainly stand much more in the relation of something 
like paternity to Calvin, and to all that he was honoured to 
achieve, than Luther does. And if an open breach with the 
Church of Rome, and the organization of a Protestant church, 
previously to and independently of Luther, are insisted upon as 
necessary to the character and position of a Reformer, we can 
point to Zwingle and his associates, the Reformers of German 
Switzerland. 

Zwingle, indeed, was honoured to perform a work, both as a 
reformer and as a theologian, which entitles him to special notice ; 
and we intend at present giving a brief account of the doctrines 
which he taught, the place which, he occupied, and the influence 
which he exerted, in regard to theological subjects. 

The important movement of which Zwingle might be said to 
be the originator and the head was wholly independent of Luther ; 
that is to say, Luther was in no way whatever, directly or indi- 
rectly, the cause or the occasion of Zwingle being led to embrace 
the views which he promulgated, or to adopt the course which he 
pursued. Zwingle had been led. to embrace the leading principles 
of Protestant truth, and to preach them in 1516, the year before 
the publication of Luther's Theses ; and it is quite certain that 
all along he continued to think and act for himself, on his own 
judgment and responsibility, deriving his views from his own 
personal and independent study of the word of God. This fact 
shows how inaccurate it is to identify the Reformation with 
Luther, as if all the Reformers derived their opinions from him, 



Vol. hi. 



214 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

and merely followed his example in abandoning the Church of 
Rome, and organizing churches apart from her communion. 
Many at this time, in different parts of Europe, were led to study 
the sacred Scriptures, and were led further to derive from this 
study views of divine truth substantially the same, and decidedly 
opposed to those generally inculcated in the Church of Rome. 
And more particularly it is certain that Luther and Zwingle — the 
two men who, in different countries, may be said to have originated 
the public revolt against Rome and the organization of Protestant 
churches — were wholly independent of, and unconnected with, 
each other, in the formation of their opinions and their plans, and 
both derived them from their own separate and independent study 
of God's word. 

We need not dwell upon Zv/ingle's general character as dis- 
tinguished from his theological opinions ; for, indeed, it has never 
been subjected to any very serious or formidable assaults. He 
was in a great measure free from those weaknesses and infirmities 
which have afforded materials for charges, in some degree true, 
and to a much greater extent only plausible, against both Luther 
and Melancthon. He usually spoke and acted with calmness, 
prudence, and discretion, and at the same time with the greatest 
vigour, intrepidity, and consistency. He gave the most satisfac- 
tory evidence of being thoroughly devoted to God's service, and 
of acting under the influence of genuine Christian principle ; and 
his character was peculiarly fitted in many respects to call forth at 
once esteem and affection. 

He has been sometimes charged, even by those who had no 
prejudice against his cause or his principles, with interfering too 
much in the political affairs of his country, and connecting religion 
too closely with political movements. And, indeed, his death at 
the battle of Cappell has been held up as an instance of righteous 
retribution, — as an illustration of the scriptural principle, that " he 
that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword." Though this 
view has been countenanced by some very eminent and influential 
names in the present day, we are by no means sure that it has 
any solid foundation to rest upon. We do not know any scrip- 
tural ground which entitles us to lay it down as an absolute rule, 
that the character of the citizen and the patriot must be entirely, 
sunk in that of the Christian minister, — anything which precludes 
ministers from taking part, in any circumstances, in promoting 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 215 

the political well-being of their country, or in seeking, in the 
use of lawful means, to have the regulation of national affairs 
directed to the advancement of the cause and kingdom of Christ. 
Ministers certainly show a spirit unworthy of their office, and 
indicate the low state of their personal religion, when they ordi- 
narily give much time or attention to anything but the direct 
and proper business of their office, and when they act as if they 
believed that the success of Christ's cause was really dependent 
upon political changes, upon results to be accomplished by human 
policy and human laws ; and scarcely anything short of downright 
immorality tends more powerfully to injure their usefulness, than 
engaging keenly in the ordinary contentions of political partisan- 
ship which may be agitating the community. But since they are 
not required to abandon wholly the discharge of the duties, or the 
exercise of the rights, which devolve upon them as citizens, or to 
become indifferent to the temporal welfare or prosperity of their 
country ; and since it can scarcely be disputed that, in point -of 
fact, the way in which national affairs have been regulated and 
national laws framed has often materially contributed to the ob- 
struction or the advancement of Christ's cause, — it seems scarcely 
fair at once to condemn the conduct of those who may have done 
something directed to the object of securing the right regulation 
of national affairs, by means of vague allegations about the spirit 
of Christianity and the use of carnal weapons, etc. etc., without 
a careful examination of the particular things done, viewed in 
connection with the whole circumstances in which they took place. 
Many countries were so situated at the time of the Reformation, 
that it was scarcely possible to keep political and religious matters 
entirely distinct, and scarcely practicable for men who were 
interested in the welfare of true religion to abstain from taking 
part in the regulation of national affairs ; and the narrower the 
sphere of action, the more difficult, or rather impracticable, did 
such separation and abstinence often become. What John Knox 
did, was compelled to do, and did with so much advantage to his 
country, in Scotland, it was at least equally warrantable and 
necessary for Zwingle to do in the small canton of Zurich, and 
in the Helvetic Confederation. And while this may be said gene- 
.rally of his taking some part in the regulation of the public affairs 
of his country, we are not aware that any evidence has been 
produced, that he either recommended or approved of any of the 



216 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay T. 

public proceedings of Zurich and her confederate cantons, which 
were clearly objectionable on grounds of religion, equity, or policy. 
It is well known that he disapproved, and did what he could to 
prevent, the steps that led to the war in which he lost his life ; and 
it was in obedience to the express orders of the civil authorities, 
and in the discharge of his duties as a pastor, that, not without 
some melancholy forebodings, he accompanied his countrymen to 
the fatal field of Cappell. We cannot dwell upon this subject, 
but we have thought it proper to express our doubts whether the 
disapprobation which some eminent men in the present day have 
indicated of Zwingle's conduct in this respect is altogether well 
founded. We confess we are inclined to regard this disapproba- 
tion as originating rather in a narrow and sentimental, than in an 
enlarged and manly, view of the whole subject ; and to suspect 
that it may have been encouraged by an unconscious infusion of 
the erroneous and dangerous principle of judging of the character 
of .Zwingle's conduct by the event, — of regarding his violent death 
upon the field of battle as a sort of proof of his Master's displeasure 
with the course he had pursued. But we cannot dwell upon 
historical and biographical matters, and must proceed to notice 
Zwingle's theology. 

Though he preached the gospel, and inculcated the leading 
principles of Protestantism, in 1516, it was not till 1519 that he 
was called to come forth publicly in opposition to the Church of 
Eome, and it was in 1522 that his first works were published ; so 
that, as his death took place in 1531, when he was only forty- 
seven years of age, his public labours as a Reformer extended only 
over a period of twelve, and as an author over a period of nine, 
years. And when we attend to the multiplicity and abundance 
of his public labours, and the character of the four folio volumes 
of his works produced in this brief space, we are constrained to 
form the highest estimate both of his ability and his industry. 
His works are chiefly occupied with the exposition of Scripture, 
and with unfolding and defending the doctrines which he had 
deduced from the word of God, in opposition to the errors of the 
Papists and the Anabaptists, — or, as he commonly called them, 
the Catabaptists, — and in opposition to Luther and his followers, 
on the subject of the presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the 
Eucharist. It is deplorable, indeed, to find, that through Luther's 
error and obstinacy, so large a portion of the brief but most 






Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 217 

valuable life of Zwingle was of necessity occupied in exposing 
the unintelligible absurdity of consubstantiation. 

Zwingle was not endowed with the fire and energy, with the 
vigorous and lively imagination, or with the graphic power of 
Luther ; but his understanding, upon the whole, was sounder, and 
his mental faculties were better regulated and more correctly 
balanced. He had not been led either by the course of his studies 
or by his spiritual experience, — that is, God's dealings with his soul 
in leading him to the knowledge and belief of the truth, — to give 
such prominence as Luther did to any particular departments or 
aspects of divine truth. He ranged somewhat more freely over 
the whole field of Scripture for truths to bring out and enforce, 
and over the whole field of Popery for errors to expose and assail ; 
and this has given a variety and extent to his speculations, which 
Luther's works do not perhaps exhibit in the same degree. And 
as he was eminently distinguished for perspicacity and soundness 
of judgment, he has very generally reached a just conclusion, and 
established it by judicious and satisfactory arguments from Scrip- 
ture. There are errors and crudities to be found in Zwingle's 
works, but they are not perhaps so numerous as in Luther's; 
and several instances occur in which, on points unconnected with 
the sacramentarian controversy, and without mentioning Luther's 
name, he has corrected some of the extravagances and over- 
statements in which the great Saxon Eeformer not unfrequently 
indulged. Indeed, considering the whole circumstances in which 
Zwingle was placed, the opportunities he enjoyed, the occupations 
in which he was involved, and the extent to which he formed his 
views from his own personal independent study of the sacred 
Scriptures, he may be fairly said to have proved himself quite 
equal to any of the Reformers, in the possession of the power of 
accurately discovering divine truth, and establishing it upon satis- 
factory scriptural grounds. 

His theology upon almost all topics of importance, - derived 
from his own independent study of the word of God, was the 
same as that which Luther derived from the same sacred and 
infallible source, as was fully proved by the Articles agreed upon 
at the conference at Marburg in the year 1529. This conference 
is one of the most interesting and important events in the history 
of the church, both in its more personal and in its more public 
aspects. It was a noble subject for the graphic pen of Dr Merle 



218 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

D'Aubigne, who lias certainly done it ample justice, and whose 
narrative of it, in the thirteenth book of the " History of the Re- 
formation," * is singularly interesting, and admirably fitted to exert 
a useful and wholesome influence. We do not know that ever, on 
any other occasion in the history of the church, four such men as 
Luther and Melancthon, Zwingle and CEcolampadius met together 
in one room, and sat at the same table discussing the great doc- 
trines of theology. Luther's refusal to shake hands with Zwingle, 
w r hich led that truly noble and thoroughly brave man to burst into 
tears, was one of the most deplorable and humiliating, but at the 
same time solemn and instructive, exhibitions of the deceitfulness 
of sin and of the human heart the world has ever witnessed. 

The importance of the Marburg conference in its more public 
aspects lies in this, that it was the first formal development, both 
of the unity and the divergence of the two great sections of the 
first Reformers, who had, independently of each other, derived 
their views of divine things from the study of the word of God. 
At this conference, the leading doctrines of Christianity were 
embodied in fifteen Articles, and both parties entirely agreed with 
each other in regard to fourteen and two-thirds of the whole — 
comprehending almost everything that could be regarded as fun- 
damental in a summary of Christian truth. Even in regard to 
the Lord's Supper they agreed upon most matters of importance, 
and differed only on this question, "Whether the true body and 
blood of Christ be corporally present in the bread and wine?" 
And in regard to this question of the corporal presence, they pro- 
mised to cherish Christian love towards one another " as far as 
the conscience of each will allow" — "quantum cujusque conscien- 
tia feret." Luther's conscience unfortunately would not allow 
him to go far, in the way of Christian love, towards those who 
denied the unintelligible dogma which he defended so strenuously ; 
and the mischiefs that arose from this controversy, and from the 
way in which it was conducted, especially by Luther and his fol- 
lowers, including its indirect and remote consequences, have been 
incalculable in amount, and are damaging the cause of Protes- 
tantism, and benefiting the cause of Popery, down to the present 
day. Luther and his followers are the parties responsible for this 
controversy, and for all the mischief which, directly and indirectly, 



*Yol. iv. 



Essay V.] 



DOCTKINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 



219 



immediately and remotely, it has occasioned, 1st, and principally, 
because they were palpably and wholly wrong on the merits of 
the question ; arid 2d, because they also displayed a far greater 
amount of the injurious influences which controversy usually 
exerts upon the spirit and conduct of men, than their opponents 
did. How many have there been in every age who, while desti- 
tute of all Luther's redeeming qualities, have displayed largelj' 
the grievous infirmities which he exhibited in the sacramentarian 
controversy, and like him have laid all the responsibility of this 
upon their conscience, which compelled them to stand fast for the 
truth ; and how great the mischief which persons of this stamp 
have done to the church, by their number and audacity, notwith- 
standing their insignificance individually ! * 

The subjects on which the orthodoxy of Zwingle has been 
chiefly assailed are the doctrine of original sin and the salvation of 
the heathen ; and, on the ground of statements which he made on 
these subjects, the Papists have been accustomed to accuse him of 
Pelagianism and Paganism. In regard to the first of these topics, 
viz. the doctrine of original sin, on which Bossuet and other 
Papists have adduced heavy charges against Zwingle's orthodoxy, 
as if he denied it altogether, it has, we think, been proved that 
when a full and impartial view is taken of his whole doctrine, he 
does not materially deviate from the standard of scriptural ortho- 
doxy on the subject of the natural and universal depravity of man; 
and that the peculiarities of his statements, upon which the charge 
is commonly based, really resolve into differences chiefly about 
the precise meaning and the proper application of words. He 
seems to have been anxious to confine the proper meaning of the 
word peccatum to an actual personal violation of God's law, and 
to have been disposed to call the natural depravity of man, the 
source or cause of actual transgression, by the name of a disease, 
morbus, rather than of a sin or peccatum. But though he attached 
unnecessary importance to this distinction, he has clearly defined 
his meaning, explained in what sense men's natural propensity to 
violate God's law is or is not peccatum ; he has fully expressed his 



* The Articles of the Conference at 
Marburg are given entire in Hospi- 
nian's " Historia Sacramentaria, 1 ' Pars 
altera, p. 77 ; Hottinger's " Historia 
Ecclesiastica," torn. viii. p. 444. They 



are also given, but not quite so fully 
and accurately, in Melchior Adam's 
Vitse Germanorum Theologorum, Vita 
Zwinglii, p. 32. 



220 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

accordance in the great scriptural doctrine, that all men do, in 
point of fact, bring into the world with thern a depravity of nature, 
a diseased moral constitution, which certainly, and in every in- 
stance, leads them to incur the guilt of actual transgressions of 
God's law, and which, but for the interposition of divine grace, 
would certainly involve them in everlasting misery. The Marburg 
Articles were prepared by Luther, who had been led to entertain 
suspicions of Zwingle's orthodoxy upon other points than the real 
or corporal presence, and among others on original sin, and were 
no doubt intended by him to test Zwingle's soundness in the faith. 
Yet Zwingle had no hesitation in subscribing the proposition which 
Luther prepared upon this point, viz. " Credimus peccatum originis, 
ab Adamo in nos carnali generatione propagatum, tale peccatum 
esse, quod omnes homines condemnet, et nisi Christus opem nobis 
sua morte et vita tulisset, seterna morte nobis in eo moriendum 
fuisset, neque unquam in regnum dei et beatitudinem aternam 
pervenire potuissimus." * This in all fairness must be held to 
establish Zwingle's substantial orthodoxy in regard to the univer- 
sality and the fatal consequences of man's natural depravity; and 
the suspicion afterwards expressed by Luther as to Zwingle's 
soundness upon this subject, without any new cause having been 
afforded for the suspicion, should be regarded merely as a specimen 
of the unjust and ungenerous treatment which he too often gave 
to the sacramentarians and others who opposed him. It is proper 
to mention that Milner has given a very defective and unfair 
representation of Zwingle's views upon this subject, as if he were 
anxious to establish a charge of error against him; and that the 
unfairness of Milner's statements has been pointed out, and 
Zwingle satisfactorily vindicated from the imputation, by Scott, in 
his excellent Continuation of Milner. 

Zwingle's adoption of this Article upon original sin also proves, 
that he did not deviate quite so far from sound doctrine in his 
views about the salvation of the heathen, as might at first sight 
appear from some of his statements upon this point. He has 
indeed plainly enough intimated, as some of the fathers have done, 
his belief that some of the more wise and virtuous heathen were 
saved and admitted to heaven; and in specifying by name some of 
the individuals among them whom we might expect to meet there, 

* Art iv. 



Essay V.] DOCTEINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 221 

such as Hercules and Theseus, he has certainly not shown his 
usual good sense. But he never meant to teach (and his subscrip- 
tion to the above-quoted Article, as well as the whole tenor of his 
writings, proves it) that men may be saved "by framing their 
lives according to the light of nature, and the law of the religion 
they profess." * On the contrary, he constantly taught that men, 
if saved at all, were saved only on the ground of Christ's atone- 
ment, and by the operation of God's grace. But he thought, 
without any sufficient scriptural warrant, that the benefits of 
Christ's death might be imparted to men, and that their natures 
might be renewed by God's agency, even though they were not 
acquainted with any external supernatural revelation, and that 
some of the heathen did manifest such moral excellence as to 
indicate the presence of God's special gracious agency. This was 
certainly seeking to be wise above what is written. We are not 
called upon to be making any positive affirmations as to what God 
can do or may do, in extending mercy to individuals among men. 
But the principle is clearly revealed to us in Scripture, that the 
general provision which God has made for saving men individually 
from their natural guilt and depravity, is by communicating to 
them, through the medium of an external revelation, and impress- 
ing upon their hearts by His Spirit, some knowledge of the only 
way of salvation through a Redeemer and a sacrifice ; and this 
truth, solemn and awful as it is, we are bound to receive as the 
ordinary rule of our opinions and practice, abstaining from all 
unwarranted speculations, and resting satisfied in the assurance 
that the Judge of all the earth will do right. Still there may be 
said to be less of error and presumption in the notion that a 
knowledge of divine truth has been communicated extraordinarily 
to some men who were not acquainted with an external super- 
natural revelation, than in the notion that men may be saved 
merely by framing their lives acording to the light of nature, and 
the particular religion, whatever it may be, with which they may 
happen to have been acquainted ; and to the benefit of this differ- 
ence in degree, such as it is, Zwingle is entitled, though his mode 
of discussing the subject cannot be vindicated. 

There is nothing in the Articles of Marburg bearing very 
directly and explicitly upon the doctrines which are usually re- 



Westminster Confession, c. 



222 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

garded as the peculiarities of tlie Calvinistic system, though we 
are persuaded that none but Calvinists can hold, with full intelli- 
gence and thorough consistency, the great scriptural doctrines 
which are there set forth concerning the natural guilt and de- 
pravity of man, the way of salvation through Christ, gratuitous 
justification, and the production of faith and regeneration by God's 
immediate agency. Still, as 'some men do not perceive and admit 
the necessary connection between these great doctrines and what 
they call the peculiarities of Calvinism, the question may still be 
asked, whether Zwingle agreed with Calvin in those peculiar doc- 
trines with which his name is usually associated. And in answer 
to this question, we have no hesitation in saying, — what is equally 
true of Luther, — that though Zwingle was not led to dwell upon 
the exposition, illustration, and defence of these doctrines so fully 
as Calvin, and although he has not perhaps given any formal 
deliverance on the irresistibility of grace and the perseverance 
of the saints, in the distinct and specific form in which these 
topics came to be afterwards discussed, yet in regard to the 
universal foreordination and efficacious providence of God, and 
in regard to election and reprobation, he was as Calvinistic as 
Calvin himself. 

It is rather singular that both Mosheim and Milner have denied 
this position, though it can be most fully established. Mosheim 
says, that " the celebrated doctrine of an absolute decree respect- 
ing the salvation of men, lohich was unknown to Zwingle^ was 
inculcated by Calvin ;" # and Milner says, " On a careful perusal 
of Zwingle's voluminous writings, I am convinced that certain 
peculiar sentiments, afterwards maintained by Calvin, concerning 
the absolute decrees of God, made no part of the theology of the 
Swiss Reformer." f This statement of Milner' s is very cautiously 
expressed, and contains no specification of the precise points upon 
which Zwingle and Calvin are said to have differed. But it is 
quite plain, from the whole scope of the passage where this extract 
occurs, that Milner just means in substance to say, as Mosheim 
does, that while Luther, as he admits, though Mosheim denies this 
too, was, on the. subject of predestination and the decrees of God, 
a Calvinist, Zwingle was not. Scott, however, whose represen- 
tations of the theological sentiments of the Reformers are very 



* Murdochs Translation by Eeid, p. 664:* f Century xvi. c. 12. 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 223 

full and accurate, and whose Continuation of Milner is, on this 
account, peculiarly valuable, and deserving of the highest com- 
mendation, has fully proved that. the representations of Mosheim 
and Milner upon this point are perfectly erroneous. It is indeed 
scarcely possible that they could ever have read Zwingle's " Elen- 
chus in Strophas Catabaptistarum," or his treatise, " De Provi- 
dentia Dei." In these treatises he has clearly and unequivocally 
expressed his sentiments upon this subject, in full conformity with 
those afterwards taught and expounded by Calvin, while it cannot 
be alleged that he has contradicted them in any part of his writ- 
ings. It may be worth while to give one or two brief extracts 
from these works in confirmation of this position. In his " Elen- 
chus," * he gives the following statement as a summary of Paul's 
argument in the Epistle to the Romans : — " Fide servamur, non 
ex operibus. Fides non est humanarum virium sed dei. Is ergo 
earn dat iis quos vocavit, eos autem vocavit quos ad salutem des- 
tinavit, eos autem ad hanc destinavit quos elegit, elegit autem 
quos voluit, liberum enim est ei hoc atque integrum, perinde 
atque figulo, vasa diversa ex eadem massa educere. Hoc breviter 
argumentum et summa est electionis a Paulo tractate." And in 
his commentary upon this summary of Paul's argument, he makes 
it clear, beyond all possibility of reasonable doubt, that he believed, 
upon Paul's authority, that God, by an absolute decree, chose 
some men to everlasting life, and made effectual provision that 
they should be saved, — a choice or election made without regard to 
anything foreseen in them, but solely according to the counsel of 
His own will. And in his treatise, " De Providentia Dei," he has 
a chapter, the sixth, on " Election," in which he fully explains his 
views in such a way as to leave no room for doubt as to their 
import, and makes some statements even about reprobation, quite 
as strong as any that ever proceeded from Calvin. Indeed he 
here expressly tells us, that in his early life, when he was engaged 
in the study of the schoolmen, he held, as most of them did, what 
we should now call the common Arminian doctrine of God's elect- 
ing men to life because He foresaw that they were to repent 
and believe the gospel, and that they would persevere in faith and 
good works. " Quae mihi sententia, ut olim scholas colenti pla- 
cuit, ita illas deserenti et divinorum oraculorum puritati adhserenti, 



Opera, torn. ii. p. 34, a. 



224 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

maxime displicuit." * And then he proceeds to show, with a 
clearness and a force not unworthy of Calvin himself, that this 
Arminian doctrine is utterly inconsistent with the perfections and 
moral government of God, and necessarily makes men, whatever 
its supporters may profess to maintain about the divine sove- 
reignty, the absolute arbiters of their own everlasting destiny, — 
the true authors of their own salvation. 

Many other extracts of a similar kind will be found in Hot- 
tinger and Scott.f They are amply sufficient to establish, that 
Zwingle concurred with Luther in teaching those great doctrines 
which have brought so much odium on the name of Calvin, before 
that great man had been led even to form his views of divine 
truth ; for Luther's treatise " De Servo Arbitrio " was published 
when Calvin was seventeen, and Zwingle's treatise "De Provi- 
dentia Dei " when Calvin was twenty years of age. 

These mis-statements of Mosheim and Milner about the theo- 
logical views of Zwingle, are rather remarkable specimens of the 
"humanum est errare," and are fitted to remind us of the little 
reliance that should be placed upon second-hand authorities. 
Mosheim further lays it down, that Zwingle and Calvin differed 
from each other, not only in regard to predestination, but also in 
regard to the power of the civil magistrate in religious matters, 
and the doctrine of the sacraments. On the first of these points, 
Mosheim is right in saying of Calvin, " that he circumscribed the 
power of the magistrate in matters of religion within narrow 
limits, and maintained that the church ought to be free and inde- 
pendent, and to govern itself by means of bodies of presbyters, 
synods, or conventions of presbyters, in the manner of the ancient 
church, yet leaving to the magistrate the protection of the church, 
and an external care over it." These were the views of Calvin ; 
and they have been the views ever since of the great body of 
those who have usually been ranked under his name, as opposed 
to Erastianism on the one hand, and to Voluntaryism on the other. 
But Mosheim falls into inaccuracy and exaggeration when, in 
contrast with these views of Calvin, he alleges, that " Zwingle 
assigned to civil rulers full and absolute power in regard to reli- 
gious matters, and, what many censure him for, subjected the 



* Opera, torn. i. p. 366, 6. I Scott, vol. iii. pp. 142-152, and 194- 

t Hottinger, torn. viii. pp. 616-650. | 231. 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 225 

ministers of religion entirely to their authority." There is no 
warrant for ascribing such extreme views upon this subject to 
Zwingle, who, though he did not restrain the power of the civil 
magistrate within such narrow bounds as Calvin assigned it, was 
not nearly so Erastian as Mosheim himself and the generality of 
Lutheran writers. There is no ground, indeed, for believing that 
Zwingle ever attained to a distinct conception of the great scrip- 
tural principle, which has been generally held by Calvinists, viz. 
that Christ has appointed in His church a government in the 
hands of ecclesiastical office-bearers, distinct from, independent 
of, and not subordinate in its own sphere to, the civil magistrate. 
But he certainly showed that he was decidedly in advance of 
Luther and Melancthon on this question, and that he was alto- 
gether opposed to the leading principle which chiefly Erastus 
laboured to establish, by ascribing fully and unequivocally the 
power of excommunication solely to the church itself, and not to 
the civil magistrate. And with respect to the wider and more 
general subject of the province and function of the civil magis- 
trate in regard to religion, Zwingle may perhaps be regarded as 
holding the main substance of what sound principle demands, in 
maintaining, as it can be proved that he did, that all the powers 
conceded to the civil authorities of Zurich in religious matters 
were exercised by them as representing the church, and only with 
the church's own consent. We do not believe that the church 
can lawfully concede or delegate to the civil authorities any 
power which Christ has conferred upon her. But still there is a 
fundamental difference between this principle of Zwingle's and 
the proper Erastian tenet, which ascribes to the civil magistrate 
jurisdiction or authority, not merely circa sacra, but in sacris, as 
inherently attaching to his office.* , 

But perhaps the most interesting topic of discussion connected 
with the investigation of the opinions of Zwingle, is his doctrine 
on the subject of the sacraments. A very general impression pre- 
vails, and it is certainly not altogether without foundation, that 
Zwingle held low and defective views upon this subject. He is 
usually alleged to have taught, that the sacraments are just naked 



* On this subject, see Zwingle, De 
Vera et Falsa Religione. De Magis- 
trate torn. ii. pp. 232-3, and Sub- 
sidium sive Coronis de Eucharistia, 



p. 248. Gerdes's Historia Reforma- 
tionis, torn. i. pp. 286-7, and Supple- 
ment to Preface. Scott, iii. pp. 32 
and 91. 



VOL. I. 15 



226 ZWINGLE AND THE « [Essay V. 

and bare signs or symbols, emblematically and figuratively repre- 
senting or signifying scriptural truths and spiritual blessings ; 
and that the reception of them is a mere commemoration of what 
Christ has done for sinners, and a profession which men make 
before the church or one another of the views which they have 
been led to entertain upon the great doctrines of Scripture con- 
cerning the way of salvation, as well as a public pledge to follow 
out consistently the views thus professed ; and there are un- 
doubtedly statements in Zwingle's writings which seem fairly 
enough to imply, that this was the whole doctrine which he taught 
concerning the sacraments. This doctrine was generally regarded 
by Protestants, especially after Calvin had published his views 
upon the subject, as being defective, and though true so far as it 
went, yet coming far short of bringing out the whole truth taught 
in Scripture regarding it. And as the Papists were accustomed 
to bring it as a serious charge against the Reformers, that they 
explained away the whole mystery and efficacy of the sacraments, 
the Protestant churches became anxious to disclaim the view which 
Zwingle had seemed to sanction. Accordingly, in the original 
Scottish Confession, prepared by John Knox, and adopted by the 
church in 1560, it is said, "We utterly condemn the vanity of 
those who affirm sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare 
signs." * Similar disclaimers are to be found in many of the other 
confessions of the Eeformed churches, and in the writings of the 
generality of the Protestant divines of that period ; though there 
is some good reason to doubt, whether there be adequate grounds 
for alleging that Zwingle held the sacraments to be nothing else 
but naked and bare signs, and though there is considerable diffi- 
culty in ascertaining in some cases what those meant to affirm 
who were anxious fco repudiate this position. It is very manifest 
that Zwingle, disgusted with the mass of heresy, mysticism, and 
absurdity which had prevailed so long and so widely in the church 
on the subject of the sacraments, leant very strongly to what may 
be called the opposite extreme of excessive simplicity and plainness. 
It is not wonderful that he did not succeed perfectly in hitting the 
golden mean, or that the reaction against the monstrous and ruin- 
ous system which had been wrought out and established in the 
Church of Eome, tempted him to try to simplify the subject of the 

* C. 21. 






Essay V.] 



DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 



227 



sacraments beyond what the Scripture required or sanctioned. 
We believe that he did to some extent yield to this temptation ; 
but we are persuaded, at the same time, that he rendered services 
of the very highest value to the church, by the light which he 
threw upon this important and intricate subject. 

There is some difficulty in ascertaining precisely what Zwingle's 
views upon the subject of the sacraments were, and there is some 
ground to think that, towards the end of his life, he ascribed a 
higher value and a greater efficacy to these ordinances than he 
had once done. In his great work, "De Vera et Falsa Religione," 
published in 1525, he admits that he had spoken of the sacraments 
somewhat rashly and crudely, and indicated that his views were 
advancing in what Protestants generally would reckon a sound 
direction. It is true, indeed, that in a later work published in 
1530, his " Ratio Fidei," he continued to assert, " Sacramenta 
tarn abesse ut gratiam conferant, ut ne adferant quidem aut dis- 
pensent." But many Protestants, who were far enough from 
regarding the sacraments as naked and bare signs, have denied 
that the sacraments confer grace;* and indeed it is only in a very 
limited and carefully defined sense that any persons intelligently 
opposed to the doctrine of the Church of Rome admit this position. 
In a work published in the same year, in defence of his " Ratio 
Fidei," he declared that he was quite willing to concur in any- 
thing that might be said in commending and exalting the sacra- 
ments, provided that what was spoken symbolically was understood 
and applied symbolically, and that the whole honour of whatever 
spiritual benefit was derived was ascribed to God, and not either 



* We may give a specimen of what 
is a common mode of speaking among 
Protestant authors, from Willet's 
Synopsis Papismi, Cont. xi. q. ii. p. 
463: "The sacraments have no power 
to give or confer grace to the receiver, 
neither are they immediate instruments 
of our justification ; instrumental means 
they are to increase and confirm our 
faith in the promises of God ; of them- 
selves they have no operation, but, as 
the Spirit of God worketh by them, 
our internal senses being moved and 
quickened by those external objects. 
Neither do we say that the sacraments 
are bare and naked signs of spiritual 



graces, but they do verily exhibit and 
represent Christ to as many as by 
faith are able and meet to apprehend 
Him. So to conclude : look how the 
word of God worketh, being preached, 
so do the sacraments; but the word 
doth no otherwise justify us but by 
working faith at the hearing thereof, 
so sacraments do serve for the increase 
of our faith ; faith is not a servant 
and handmaid to the sacraments, but 
faith is the more principal, and the 
sacraments have no other use or end 
than as they are helps for the strength- 
ening of our faith. Grace of themselves 
they can give or confer none." 



228 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

to the person administering them, or to any efficacy of the out- 
ward elements or actions. And in the last work which he wrote, 
and which was not published till after his death, the "Expositio 
Fidei," he gave some indications, though perhaps not very explicit, 
of regarding the sacraments not only as signs but as seals, — as 
signs arid seals not only on the part of men, but of God, — as 
signifying and confirming something then done by God through 
the Spirit, as well as something done by the receiver through faith. 
This is the great general principle which has been usually held by 
Protestants upon the subject, and is commonly regarded as con- 
stituting the leading point of difference between what is often 
represented as the Zwinglian doctrine of the sacraments being only 
naked and bare signs, and that generally held by the Protestant 
churches. We cannot assert that Zwingie has brought out very 
distinctly and explicitly this important principle, that the sacra- 
ments are signs and seals on the part of God as well as of men ; 
and therefore we cannot assert that his doctrine, though it is true 
so far as it goes, brings out the whole of what Scripture teaches 
upon this subject, or deny that he leant unduly and excessively to 
the side of plainness and simplicity in the exposition of this topic. 
But we are persuaded that he manifested very great strength and 
vigour of mind in his speculations upon this matter, and that he 
aided greatly the progress of scriptural truth in regard to it. 

It was in the highest degree honourable to Zwingie that he so 
entirely threw off the huge mass of extravagant absurdity and 
unintelligible mysticism, which from a very early period had been 
gathering round the subject of the sacraments, and which had 
reached its full height in the authorized doctrine of the Church 
of Rome. This was an achievement which Luther never fully 
reached, either in regard to baptism or the Lord's Supper. 
Zwingle's rejection of the whole of the erroneous and dangerous 
doctrine in regard to the sacraments which had been inculcated 
by the schoolmen, and sanctioned by the Church of Rome, was, 
in the circumstances in which he was placed, one of the most 
arduous and honourable, and in its consequences one of the 
most important and beneficial, achievements which the history 
of the church records. The great general principles by which 
Zwingie was guided in the formation and promulgation of his 
views in regard to the sacraments were these : — 1st, That great 
care should be taken to avoid anything which might appear to 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 229 

trench upon the free grace of God, the meritorious efficacy of 
Christ's work, and the almighty agency of His Spirit in bestowing 
upon men all spiritual blessings ; and 2d, That whatever exter- 
nal means of grace may have been appointed, and in whatever 
way these means may ordinarily operate, God must not be held 
to be tied or restricted in the communication of spiritual benefits 
to the use of anything of an external kind, though He has himself 
appointed and prescribed it ; and 3d, That the most important 
matter connected with the subject of the sacraments is the state 
of mind and heart of the recipient; and that, with reference 
to this, the essential thing is, that the state of mind and heart 
of the recipient should correspond with the outward act which, 
in participating in the sacrament, he performed. Zwingle was 
deeply persuaded that the right mode of investigating this sub- 
ject was not to follow the example of the Fathers, in straining 
the imagination to devise unwarranted, extravagant, and unin- 
telligible notions of the nature and effects of the sacraments, for 
the purpose of making them more awful and more influential, 
but to trace out plainly and simply what is taught and indi- 
cated in Scripture regarding them. By following out this course, 
conscientiously and judiciously, he was led in the first place to 
repudiate the whole huge mass of absurdity and heresy which 
the Fathers and the schoolmen had accumulated around this sub- 
ject ; and in the second place, to lay down and to apply the 
three great general principles above stated, which were fitted 
not only to exclude much grievous error, but- to bring in much 
important and wholesome truth. Zwingle, in these ways, ren- 
dered valuable service to the church, and has done much to 
put the general subject of the sacraments upon a sound and 
safe footing. 

Zwingle' s mental constitution gave him a very decided aver- 
sion to the unintelligible and mystical, and made him lean towards 
what was clear, definite, and practical. He had a strong sense 
of the great injury that had been done to religion by the notions 
which had long prevailed in regard to the sacraments. And under 
these influences it is not surprising that, while discarding a great 
deal of dangerous error, he should have left in abeyance some 
portion of wholesome truth. He leant to the side of what was 
clear, palpable, and safe ; and in the circumstances in which he 
was placed, this was the right side to lean to. It is not surprising 



230 ZWINGLE AND THE ' [Essay V. 

that he did not stop precisely at the right point, and that he carried 
the work of demolition somewhat too far. And when we consider 
what a mass of unintelligible and incredible absurdities, to the 
deep degradation of the human intellect, — and what a mass of 
heresies, perverting the way of salvation and tending to ruin men's 
souls, — had been invented by the Fathers and the schoolmen, and 
sanctioned by the Church of Rome on the subject of the sacra- 
ments, we cannot but sympathize with Zwingle's general spirit 
and tendencies in regard to this matter, and rejoice in the large 
measure of success which attended his investigations. It is indeed 
a matter of fundamental importance, and perhaps more indispens- 
able than anything else towards preparing men for a rational, 
intelligent, and beneficial reception of the sacraments, and guard- 
ing against self-deceit and danger in the use of them, that they 
have distinct and accurate conceptions of what the outward ele- 
ments and actions signify or represent, and of what is professed 
or implied in the reception of them ; that is, of what is the state 
of mind and heart on the part of the recipient which the reception 
of them indicates or proclaims. It is in a great measure from 
inattention to this fundamental point, that so many in every age 
have been led to participate in the sacraments, who were thereby 
making a false profession, and of course injuring their own souls; 
while they were entertaining unfounded expectations of getting 
spiritual blessings without having any anxiety or concern about 
what is ordinarily necessary with a view to that result. Zwingle 
rendered a most important service by bringing out this great 
principle, which had been almost entirely buried, and pressing it 
upon the attention of the church. He came short indeed of the 
truth in his doctrine as to the nature and efiicacy of the sacra- 
ments, by not bringing out fully what God does, or is ready and 
willing to do, through their instrumentality, in offering to men 
and conferring upon them, through the exercise of faith, spiritual 
blessings. But he laid a good foundation, on which the whole 
truth taught in Scripture might be built, when he directed special 
attention to the true significance and import of the outward ele- 
ments and actions; and pressed upon men the paramount necessity 
of seeing to it, that the state of their mind and heart corresponded 
with the outward signs which they used — with the outward actions 
which they performed. 

To all this amount of commendation in connection with the 



Essay V.] 



DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 



231 



exposition of the sacraments we believe Zwingle to be well entitled, 
while the true amount of his shortcoming or deficiency it is not 
very easy to estimate. Indeed, in regard to this latter point, it 
should not be forgotten, that of the important document commonly 
called the " Consensus Tigurinus," — in which was embodied a state- 
ment of the fundamental principles about the sacraments, which 
were held in common by the churches of Geneva and Zurich, as 
represented by Calvin and by Bullinger the successor of Zwingle, 
— Calvin declared his conviction, that "if Zwingle and CEcolam- 
padius, these most excellent and illustrious servants of Christ, 
were now alive, they would not change a word in it."* 

We do not consider it necessary to dwell longer upon the ex- 
amination of the opinions of Zwingle in regard to the sacraments. 
Indeed we do not intend to bring forward anything further that 
is connected with the personal history of the great Reformer of 
German Switzerland, f We propose now to give some exposition 
of the general doctrine or theory of the sacraments, as it has been 
held by the Eeformed churches, — and especially as it has been 



* Nienieyer's " Collectio Confes- 
sionum," p. 201. 

f There are lives of Zwingle in 
Melchior Adam's " Vitee Germanorum 
Theologorum," p. 25, and in Chauf- 
fepie's Continuation of Bayle's Dic- 
tionary, torn. iv. Hess's " Life of 
Zwingle," which was translated into 
English, and published in this country 
in the early part of this century, is 
not a work of much value. Much 
better is "Ulrich Zwingli et son 
Epoque," translated from the German 
of J. J. Hottinger, and published at 
Lausanne in 1844 ; and still better and 
much more complete is Christoffel's 
" Zwingli, or the rise of the Reforma- 
tion in Switzerland," translated from 
the German by John Cockran, Esq., 
and published by Messrs Clark at Edin- 
burgh in 1858. There is a full discus- 
sion of the principal charges which have 
been adduced against Zwingle, and of 
the leading misrepresentations which 
have been put forth of his life and doc- 
trines, in the " Apologia pro Zwinglio 
et ejus Operibus," prefixed by his son- 
in-law Gualther to the folio edition 
of his works, published in 1581, and 



in "Hottingeri HistoriaEcclesia^tioa," 
torn. viii. pp. 285-400. Much U rest- 
ing matter concerning Zwingle's life 
and labours will be found in Ruchat's 
"Histoire de la Reformation de la 
Suisse," torn, i, and ii. ; Gerdes's 
" Historia Reformaticnis," torn. i. and 
ii.; and Scott's " Continuation of Mil- 
ner," vols. ii. and iii. Of Zwingle's 
own works, several having a symboli- 
cal character are given in Niemeyer's 
"Collectio Confessionum," viz. "Ar- 
ticuli sive Conclusiones," lxvii., occu- 
pying a similar place to Luther's 
"Theses," but exhibiting a much fuller 
view of scriptural anti-papal truth ; his 
" Ratio Fidei," presented to the Em- 
peror at the Diet of Augsburg in 1 530 ; 
and his "Expositio Christianse Fidei," 
written in 1531, and published after 
his death. Of his other works, those 
which are perhaps the most important, 
as giving within a comparatively brief 
compass most information as to his 
doctrines upon points which are still 
interesting, are the Explanation of the 
Sixty-seven Articles, the "Commen- 
tarius de Vera et Falsa Religione," and 
the treatise "De Providentia Dei." 



232 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

set forth in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms which were 
prepared by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and which 
are still received as symbolical by the great body of Presbyterians 
over the world. 

A grievous corruption of the scriptural doctrine of the sacra- 
ments appeared very early in the church : it spread far and wide, 
and exerted a most injurious influence upon the interests of true 
religion. Confusion and, exaggeration very early appeared in 
speaking of these ordinances, or the " tremendous mysteries," as 
some of the Fathers called them ; and this confusion and exag- 
geration soon led to a substitution of the mere observance of out- 
ward rites for the weightier matters of the law — for the essential 
features of Christian character and conduct. Even in the second 
century we find plain indications of a tendency to speak of the 
nature, design, and effects of the sacraments, in a very inflated 
and exaggerated style,- — a style very different from anything we 
find in the New Testament. We have a striking instance of this 
in the famous passage on the Eucharist, occurring near the end 
r>f the first Apology of Justin Martyr, the very earliest of the 
I athers who was not contemporary with the apostles. Eomanists 
contend that this passage teaches the doctrine of transubstantia- 
tion; Lutherans, that it teaches consubstantiation ; and most 
other men, that it teaches neither the one nor the other. All men 
of candour admit that the passage is obscure and ambiguous ; and 
all men of sense should have long ago come to the conclusion, 
that it was not worth while to spend any time in investigating its 
meaning.* It holds true of this, as of many other passages in 
the writings of the Fathers which have given rise to much learned 
discussion in modern times, that it really has no definite meaning ; 
and that if we could call up its author, and interrogate him on 
the subject, he would be utterly unable to tell us what he meant 
when he wrote it. This tendency to exaggeration and extrava- 
gance, to confusion and absurdity, upon the subject of the sacra- 
ments, increased continually, in proportion as sound doctrine upon 
matters of greater importance disappeared and vital religion de- 
cayed, until, in the Middle Ages, Christianity came to be looked 
upon by the great body of its professors, as a system which con- 
sisted in, and the whole benefits of which were connected with, 



Semisch's Justyn Martyr, vol. ii. pp. 339, 340. Biblical Cabinet, No. 44. 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 233 

a series of outward ceremonies and ritual observances. The 
nature, design, and effects of the sacraments occupied a large 
share of the attention of the schoolmen ; and indeed the exposi- 
tion and development of the Romish and Tractarian doctrine upon 
this subject, may be justly regarded as one of the principal exhi- 
bitions of the anti-scriptural views and the perverted ingenuity of 
the scholastic doctors. An exaggerated and unscriptural view of 
the value and efficacy of the sacraments was too deeply engrained 
into the scholastic theology, and was too much in accordance with 
the general policy of the Church of Rome, and the general cha- 
racter and tendency of her system, to admit of the Council of 
Trent giving any sanction to the sounder views which had been 
introduced by the Protestants, especially by that section of them 
who have been called the Reformed, to distinguish them from the 
followers of Luther. 

The doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this subject is set 
forth in the first part of the decree of the seventh session of the 
Council of Trent, which treats de Sacramentis in genere, and in 
statements made in treating of some of the other sacraments indi- 
vidually. The leading features of their doctrine on the general 
subject of the sacraments are these, that "through the sacra- 
ments of the church all true righteousness either begins, or when 
begun is increased, or when lost is repaired;" " that men do not 
obtain from God the grace of justification by faith alone without 
the sacraments, or at least without a desire or wish to receive 
them ; " " that the sacraments contain the grace which they signify 
or represent, and confer it always upon all who receive them, 
unless they put a bar or obstacle in the way " (ponunt obiceni), — 
that is (as they usually explain it), unless they have at the time 
of receiving the sacrament a deliberate intention of committing 
sin ; and that they confer or bestow grace thus universally ex 
opere operate, — that is, by some power or virtue given to them 
and operating through them. The application of these principles, 
which constitute the general doctrine or theory of the sacraments 
in the Romish theology, to the sacrament of baptism, and to the 
fundamental blessings of forgiveness and regeneration which it 
signifies or represents, plainly implies — what indeed the Council 
of Trent expressly teaches — viz. that baptism is the instrumental 
cause of justification, which with Romanists comprehends both 
forgiveness and regeneration ; that all adults receive when bap- 



234 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

tized, unless they put a bar in the way, these great blessings ; that 
all infants, being unable to put a bar in the way of the effica- 
cious operation of the sacrament, receive in baptism the forgive- 
ness of original sin and the renovation of their moral natures ; and 
that no sin of unbaptized persons, not even the original sin of 
those who die in infancy, is forgiven without baptism. This is 
in substance the doctrine in regard to the sacraments which is 
taught by the modern Tractarians of the Church of England, 
and which indeed, in its main features, may be said to have been 
always held by High Churchmen. Some of them shrink, indeed, 
from speaking so plainly on some points as the Council of Trent 
has done, especially on the opus operatum; but there is no diffi- 
culty in showing that -all High Churchmen must concur in sub- 
stance with the general sacramental theory of the Church of 
Rome. The essential idea of the Popish and Tractarian doctrine 
upon this subject is, that God has established an invariable con- 
nection between the sacraments as outward ordinances, and the 
communication by himself of spiritual blessings, of pardon and 
holiness ; with this further notion, which naturally results from 
it, that He has endowed these outward ordinances with some 
sort of intrinsic power or inherent capacity of conveying or 
conferring the spiritual blessings with which they are respec- 
tively connected. This is what is, and indeed must be, meant 
by the sacramental principle, about which High Churchmen in 
the present day prate so much ; and notwithstanding their efforts 
to wrap it up in vague and indefinite phraseology, it is plainly 
in substance just the doctrine which was established by the 
Council of Trent. It is a necessary result of this principle, that 
the want of the outward ordinance, — not the neglect or contempt 
of it, but the mere want of it, — from whatever cause arising, 
deprives men of the spiritual blessings which it is said to convey 
or confer. Romanists have found it necessary or politic to make 
some little exceptions to this practical conclusion ; but this is the 
great general result to which their whole scheme of doctrine upon 
the subject leads, and which ordinarily they do not hesitate to 
adopt and to apply. 

In opposition to all these views, Protestants have been accus- 
tomed to maintain the great principle, that the only thing on 
which the possession by men individually of the fundamental 
spiritual blessings of justification and sanctification is, by God's 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 235 

arrangements, made necessarily and invariably dependent, is union 
to Jesus Christ, and that the only thing on which union to Christ 
may be said to be dependent, is faith in Him ; so that it holds 
true, absolutely and universally, that wherever there is faith in 
Christ, or union to Him by faith, there pardon and holiness — all 
necessary spiritual blessings — are communicated by God and 
received by men, even though they have never actually partaken 
in any sacrament, or in any outward ordinance whatever. Scrip- 
ture, we think, plainly teaches this great truth, that as soon as, 
and in every instance in which, men are united to Christ by faith, 
they receive justification and regeneration ; while without or apart 
from personal union to Christ by faith, these indispensable bless- 
ings are never conferred or received. Every man who is justified 
and regenerated is certainly admitted into heaven, whether he 
have been baptized or not ; and there is no ground in Scripture 
for maintaining either that every one who has been baptized has 
been forgiven and regenerated, or that those who have not been 
baptized have not received these great blessings. 

If this great general principle can be established from Scrip- 
ture, it must materially affect some of the views which Romanists 
and Tractarians hold in regard to the sacraments, and especially 
in regard to their necessity and importance. Romanists, indeed, 
are in the habit of charging Protestants with holding that the 
sacraments are unnecessary or superfluous. But this is a misre- 
presentation. In perfect consistency with this great doctrine, which 
represents the possession of spiritual blessings and the ultimate 
enjoyment of heaven, as dependent absolutely and universally 
upon union to Christ through faith and upon nothing else, we 
maintain that the sacraments which Christ instituted are of im- 
perative obligation, and that it is a duty incumbent upon men to 
observe them when the means and opportunity of doing so are 
afforded them ; so that it is sinful to neglect or disregard them. 
Upon the subject of the necessity of the sacraments, Protestant 
divines have been accustomed to employ a distinction, which, like 
many other scholastic distinctions, brings out very clearly the 
meaning it was intended to express, viz. that the sacraments are 
necessary, ex necessitate prceeepti non ex necessitate medii; — neces- 
sary ex necessitate prwcepti, because the observance of them is 
commanded or enjoined, and must therefore be practised by all 
who have in providence an opportunity of doing so, so that the 



236 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

voluntary neglect or disregard of them is sinful ; but not necessary 
ex necessitate medii, or in such a sense that the mere fact of men 
not having actually observed them either produces or proves the 
non-possession of spiritual blessings, — either excludes men from 
heaven, or affords evidence that they will not in point of fact 
be admitted there. Regeneration or conversion, as implying a 
thorough change of moral nature, is necessary, both ex necessitate 
lircecepti and ex necessitate medii. It is necessary, not merely 
because it is commanded or enjoined, so that the neglect or 
omission of it is sinful, but also because, from the nature of the 
case, the result cannot be attained without it ; inasmuch as it holds 
true, absolutely and universally, in point of fact and in the case 
of each individual of our race, that except we be born again we 
cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. No such necessity can be 
established with respect to the sacraments, though Romanists and 
Tractarians assert this, and must do so in order to carry out their 
principles consistently. 

But while this great general principle about spiritual blessings 
and eternal happiness being dependent upon union to Christ and 
upon nothing else, is inconsistent with the Popish and Tractarian 
notions of the necessity of the sacraments, and furnishes a strong 
presumption against the higher views of the importance and effi- 
cacy of these ordinances, it does not of itself give us any direct 
information as to what the sacraments are, — as to their nature, 
objects, and effects. Protestants profess to have a certain theory 
or doctrine in regard to the sacraments, as well as Romanists and 
Tractarians. A definition of the sacraments — or, throwing aside 
the technical scholastic meaning of the word definition, a descrip- 
tion of the leading features of the sacrament, or a statement of the 
main positions held concerning them — is properly the sacramental 
j principle ; although that phrase has been commonly employed in 
I the present day in a more limited and specific sense. At the time of 
the Reformation the name Sacramentarian was applied by Luther 
to Zwingle and his followers, to convey the idea that they explained 
away or reduced to nothing the value and efficacy of the sacra- 
ments; while Zwingle, throwing back the nickname, protested that 
it might be applied with more propriety to those who made great 
mysteries of the sacraments, and ascribed to them a value and 
importance beyond what Scripture warrants. The justice of this 
statement of Zwingle has been confirmed by the aspect which the 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 237 

discussion of this topic has assumed in the present day. The 
Tractarians seem to think that none ought to be regarded as really 
believing in sacraments, except those who concur with the Church 
of Rome in holding that there is an invariable connection between 
the outward sign and the spiritual blessing signified, and that the 
outward ordinance exerts a real efficacious influence in producing 
the internal result. This, accordingly, is what they mean by the 
sacramental principle, on which they are fond of enlarging, and 
of which they claim to themselves a sort of monopoly. And this 
is the sense in which the phrase is now commonly used. But the 
sense in which the expression ought to be employed, is just to 
designate the fundamental idea of the general doctrine of Scrip- 
ture on the subject of the sacraments ; and in this sense, of course, 
Protestants have their sacramental principle as well as Romanists 
and Tractarians. 

We believe that Scripture furnishes sufficient materials for 
giving a general definition or description of the . sacraments, or of 
a sacrament as such ; and we call this the sacramental principle, or 
the true doctrine of Scripture concerning the sacraments. The 
Reformers put forth their sacramental principle, or their general 
doctrine concerning the sacraments, in opposition to the views 
which prevailed at the time in the Church of Rome, and which 
were afterwards established by the Council of Trent. Definitions 
and descriptions of the sacraments were in consequence introduced 
into all the Confessions of the Reformed churches ; and the inves- 
tigation of the nature, the objects, and the effects of the sacraments 
has continued ever since to hold a place in theological discussions. 
Since the time when Calvin succeeded in bring the churches of 
Geneva and Zurich to a cordial agreement upon this subject, in 
the adoption of the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549, there has been 
no very great difference of opinion concerning it among Protestant 
divines, although there have occasionally been individuals who 
showed an inclination either towards the Popish and superstitious, 
or towards the Socinian and Rationalistic doctrine, and although 
the Church of England, from her unfortunate baptismal service, 
has been repeatedly placed in a most difficult and deplorable posi- 
tion. But though there is no great difference of opinion among 
the Reformed churches, and among Protestant divines, concerning 
the general doctrine of the sacraments, there seems to have sprung 
up in modern times a great deal of ignorance and confusion in 



238 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

men's conceptions upon this subject. While the sacraments in- 
dividually, baptism and the Lord's Supper, have been a good 
deal discussed in some of their aspects, the general doctrine of 
sacraments, as equally applicable to both, or to any other ordi- 
nances for which the designation of a sacrament might be claimed, 
has been very much overlooked. Even the boasting of the Trac- 
tarians about the sacramental principle, has not led to much dis- 
cussion about the nature and design of the sacraments in general. 
The two latest works, so far as we know, which have been pub- 
lished under the title of the Doctrine of the Sacraments, contain 
nothing whatever on the general questions to which we have 
adverted. In the year 1838 a work was published, entitled "The 
Doctrine of the Sacraments," extracted from the " Remains of 
Alexander Knox," who was the friend and correspondent of Bishop 
Jebb, and whose writings seem to have contributed in no small 
degree to the rise and growth of Tractarianism ; and this work 
discusses, with no little ability, many questions about baptism 
and about the Lord's Supper, but it contains nothing about the 
sacraments in general, or about sacraments as such. This state- 
ment likewise applies to a recent work of Archbishop Whately, 
the latest we believe he has published. In 1857 he put forth a 
work, entitled " The Scripture Doctrine concerning the Sacra- 
ments, and the Points connected therewith;" and it contains an 
able discussion on some points connected with baptism, and on 
some points connected with the Lord's Supper, but nothing what- 
ever on the general nature, objects, and effects of the sacraments. 
The disregard of this topic has tended to produce a great 
deal of confusion and error in men's conceptions upon the whole 
subject. We are in the habit of seeing baptism and the Lord's 
Supper administered in the church, and are thus led insensibly, 
and without much consideration, to form certain notions in regard 
to them, without investigating carefully their leading principles 
and grounds, and especially without investigating the relation 
in which they stand to each other, and the principles that may 
apply to both of them. We believe that there is scarcely any 
subject set forth in the confessions of the Reformed churches, 
that is less attended to and less understood than this of the sacra- 
ments ; and that many even of those who have subscribed these 
confessions, rest satisfied with some defective and confused notions 
on the subject of baptism and on the subject of the Lord's 



Essay V.] DOCTKINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 239 

Supper, while they have scarcely even a fragment of an idea of 
a sacramental principle, or of any general doctrine or theory on 
the subject of sacraments. 

We are persuaded that it would tend greatly to enable men 
to understand more fully, what we fear many subscribe without 
understanding, if they took some pains to form a distinct and 
definite conception of what is taught in the confessions of faith in 
regard to sacraments in general, and then applied these views to 
the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper separately. 
It is quite true that the Scriptures can scarcely be said to contain 
any statements which bear very directly and formally upon the 
topics usually set forth in confessions of faith, and discussed in 
systems of theology, under the head De Sacramentis in genere, or 
to give us anything like full and systematic information about the 
general subject of the sacraments as such. But the New Testa- 
ment plainly sets before us two outward ordinances, and two only, 
the observance of which is of permanent obligation in the Chris- 
tian church, and which manifestly resemble each other in many 
respects, both in their general character as emblematic or symbo- 
lical institutions, and in their general purpose and object as means 
of grace, — that is, as connected in some way or other with the 
communication and the reception of spiritual blessings. As these 
two ordinances evidently occupy a peculiar place of their own in 
the general plan of the Christian system, and in the arrangements 
of the Christian church, it is natural and reasonable to inquire 
whether there are any materials in Scripture for adopting any 
general conclusions as to their nature, design, and efficacy, that 
may be equally applicable to them both. And, accordingly, w T hat 
is usually given as the definition or description of the sacraments, 
or of a sacrament as such, is just an embodiment of what it is 
thought can be collected or deduced from Scripture, as being 
equally predicable of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Of course 
nothing ought to be introduced into the definition or description 
of the sacraments, which cannot be proved to be equally and alike 
applicable to all the ordinances to which the designation of a sacra- 
ment is given ; and the less men find in Scripture that seems to 
them equally applicable to both ordinances, the more meagre is 
their sacramental principle, or their general doctrine in regard to 
the nature and design of the sacraments. 

The Reformed confessions and Protestant divines, in general, 



240 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

have agreed very much in the definition or description of the 
sacraments, though there is a considerable diversity in the clear- 
ness and distinctness with which their doctrine upon this subject 
is unfolded. It can scarcely, we think, be denied that the general 
tendency, even among the Reformers, was to exaggerate or over- 
state the importance and efficacy of the sacraments. Zwingle's 
views were a reaction against those which generally prevailed in 
the Church of Rome; but the extent to which he went rather 
reacted upon the other Reformers, and made them again approxi- 
mate somewhat in phraseology to the Romish position. This 
appears more or less even in Calvin, though in his case there 
was an additional perverting element — the desire to keep on 
friendly terms with Luther and his followers, and with that 
view to approximate as far as he could to their notions of the 
corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We have no fault 
to find with the substance of Calvin's statements in regard to the 
sacraments in general, or with respect to baptism ; but we cannot 
deny that he made an effort to bring out something like a real 
influence exerted by Christ's human nature upon the souls of be- 
lievers, in connection with the dispensation of the Lord's Supper, 
— an effort which, of course, was altogether unsuccessful, and 
resulted only in what was about as unintelligible as Luther's con- 
substantiation. This is perhaps the greatest blot in the history 
of Calvin's labours as a public instructor ; and it is a curious 
circumstance, that the influence which seems to have been chiefly 
efficacious in leading him astray in the matter, was a quality for 
which he usually gets no credit, viz. an earnest desire to preserve 
unity and harmony among the different sections of the Christian 
church. 

But, independently of any peculiarity of this sort, we have no 
doubt that the general tendency among Protestant divines, both 
at the period of the Reformation and in the seventeenth century, 
was to lean to the side of magnifying the value and efficacy of the 
sacraments, and that some of the statements even in the symbolical 
books of some churches are not altogether free from indications 
of this kind. But while this is true, and should not be overlooked, 
there is not nearly so much ground for the allegation, and in so 
far as there is ground for it, it does not apply to points of nearly 
so much importance, as persons imperfectly and superficially 
acquainted with the history of theological discussion have some- 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 241 

times supposed. Indeed, blunders have occurred in connection 
with this subject which are perfectly ludicrous. 

Dr Phillpotts, the present Bishop of Exeter, a man of very 
considerable skill and ability in controversy, and respectably ac- 
quainted with some departments of theological literature, asserted, 
in a charge which he published in 1848, that several of the con- 
fessions of the Reformed churches — specifying "the Helvetic, 
that of Augsburg, the Saxon, the Belgic, and the Catechism of 
Heidelberg" — agreed with the Church of Rome and the Church 
of England in teaching the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. 
Dr Goode, now Dean of Ripon — who has done most admirable 
service to the cause of Christian Protestant truth, by his crushing 
and unanswerable exposures of Tractarianism, and who, in point 
of learning and ability, is one of the most creditable and successful 
champions the Evangelical party in the Church of England has 
ever had — thoroughly exposed this " astounding statement," — 
" this most extraordinary blunder." He showed that it arose from 
a very imperfect and superficial acquaintance with their theology 
as a whole ; and proved that the construction thus put upon some 
of their statements was, in the first place, not required by anything 
they had said ; and, in the second place, was precluded, not only 
by the views set forth in some of these documents on the subject 
of election, but by the views taught in all of them on the general 
character and objects of the sacraments, and the persons for whom 
they are intended, and in whom alone they produce their appro- 
priate effects. The exposure was so conclusive, that Dr Phillpotts 
felt himself constrained to withdraw the statement in the second 
edition of his charge ; but tried to cover his retreat by an unfounded 
allegation, that the documents to which he had referred were self- 
contradictory.* 

It was upon the same grounds which misled the Bishop of 
Exeter, that the same allegation of teaching baptismal regenera- 
tion has recently been adduced against u the deliverance of the 
Westminster divines in the Shorter Catechism on the subject of 
baptism." It is very certain that the "Westminster divines did 
not intend in this deliverance, or in any other which they put 
forth, to teach baptismal regeneration. A contradiction is not to 



* See Goode's "Vindication of the I p. 9 ; and his "Effects of Infant 
Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles," J Baptism," chap. iv. pp. 143 and 160. 

VOL. I. 16 



242 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

be imputed to them, if by any fair process of construction it can 
be avoided ; and it is in the highest degree improbable that they 
should have contradicted themselves upon a point at once so plain 
and so important. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, what- 
ever else it may include, is always understood to imply, that all 
baptized infants are regenerated. Now there is nothing in the 
Shorter Catechism which gives any countenance to this notion, 
or indeed conveys any explicit deliverance as to the bearing of 
baptism upon infants. The notion that the Shorter Catechism 
teaches baptismal regeneration, must, we presume, be based upon 
the assumption, that the general description given of the import 
and object of baptism, is intended to apply to every case in 
which the outward ordinance of baptism is administered. But 
there is no ground for this assumption. The general description 
given of baptism must be considered in connection with the gene- 
ral description given of a sacrament, and it is the disregard of 
this which is one main cause of the ignorance and confusion so 
often exhibited upon this whole subject. In accordance with view's 
which we have already explained, the description of a sacrament 
is intended to embody the substance of what is taught or indicated 
in Scripture, as being true equally and alike of both sacraments. 
Of course, all that is said about a sacrament not only may, but 
must, be applied both to baptism and the Lord's Supper, as being 
in all its extent true of each of them. 

The definition or description given of a sacrament in the 
Shorter Catechism is, that it " is a holy ordinance instituted by 
Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the 
new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers." 
In order to bring out fully the teaching of the Catechism on the 
subject of baptism, we must, in the first place, take in the general 
description given of a sacrament, and then the special description 
given of baptism, and we must interpret them in connection with 
each other as parts of one scheme of doctrine. Upon this obvious 
principle we say, that the first and fundamental position taught 
in the Shorter Catechism concerning baptism is this, that it (as 
well as the Lord's Supper) " is an holy ordinance instituted by 
Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the 
new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers." 
It is of fundamental importance to remember, that the Catechism 
does apply this whole description of a sacrament to baptism, and 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 243 

to realize what this involves. In addition to this general descrip- 
tion of baptism as a sacrament, common to it with the Lord's 
Supper, the Catechism proceeds to give a more specific descrip- 
tion of baptism as distinguished from the other sacrament. It is 
this, — " Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water, 
in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, doth 
signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, our partaking of the 
benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the 
Lord's." Now the only ground for alleging that this teaches 
baptismal regeneration, must be the notion, that it applies in 
point of fact to all who have been baptized, and that all who 
have received the outward ordinance of baptism are warranted 
to adopt this language, and to apply it to themselves. But the 
true principle of interpretation is, that this description of bap- 
tism applies fully and in all its extent only to those who are pos- 
sessed of the necessary qualifications or preparations for baptism, 
and who are able to ascertain this. And the question as to who 
these are, must be determined by a careful consideration of all 
that is taught upon this subject. Much evidently depends upon 
the use and application of the pronoun our here ; that is, upon 
the question, Who are the persons that are supposed to be speak- 
ing, or to be entitled to speak, — that is, to employ the language in 
which the general nature and object of baptism are here set forth? 
The our, of course, suggests a ice, who are supposed to be the 
parties speaking ; and the question is, Who are the we ? Are they 
all who have been baptized? or only those who are capable of 
ascertaining that they have been legitimately baptized, and who, 
being satisfied on this point, are in consequence able to adopt the 
language of the Catechism intelligently and truly? Now this 
question is similar to that which is often suggested in the inter- 
pretation of the apostolical epistles, where the use of the words 
we, us, and our, raises the question, Who are the ive that are 
supposed to be speaking ? that is, Who are the we, in whose name, 
or as one of whom, the apostle is there speaking? And this 
question, wherever it arises, must be decided by a careful exami- 
nation of the whole context and scope of the passage. In the 
Catechism we have first a general description given of a sacrament, 
intended to embody the substance of what Scripture is held to 
teach or indicate, as equally and alike applicable to both sacraments. 
One leading element in this description is, that the sacraments 



244 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

are for the use and benefit of believers, and this principle must be 
kept in view in all the more specific statements afterwards made 
about either sacrament. This consideration, as well as the whole 
scope of the statement, clearly implies, that the description given 
of baptism proceeds upon the assumption, that the persons who 
partake in it are possessed of the necessary qualifications, — that 
is, that they are believers, and do or may know that they are so. 

This principle of construction is a perfectly fair and natural 
one. It has always been a fundamental principle in the theology 
of Protestants, that the sacraments were instituted and intended 
for believers, and produce their appropriate beneficial effects only 
through the faith which must have previously existed, and which 
is expressed and exercised in the act of partaking in them. This 
being a fundamental and recognised principle in the Protestant 
theology of the sacraments, it was quite natural that it should be 
assumed and taken into account in giving a general description of 
their objects and effects. And the application of this principle of 
interpretation to the whole deliverances of the Westminster divines 
upon the subject of the sacraments, in the Confession of Faith 
and in the Larger Catechism as well as in the Shorter, introduces 
clearness and consistency into them all, whereas the disregard of 
it involves them in confusion and inconsistency. 

On the grounds which have now been hinted at, and which, 
when once suggested, must commend themselves to every one who 
will deliberately and impartially examine the subject, we think it 
very clear and certain, that the we, suggested by the oar in the 
general description of baptism, are only the believers who had 
been previously set forth as the proper and worthy recipients of 
the sacraments; and that consequently the statement that "baptism 
signifies and seals our ingrafting into Christ," etc., must mean, 
that it signifies and seals the ingrafting into Christ OF those of 
US who have been ingrafted into Christ by faith. This construc- 
tion, of course, removes all appearance of the Catechism teaching 
baptismal regeneration. 

The truth is, that the only real difficulty in the case is precisely 
the reverse of that which has been started. The difficulty is, not 
that the Catechism appears to teach that infants are all regenerated 
in baptism, but that it appears to teach that believers are the only 
proper recipients of baptism, as well as of the Lord's Supper ; while 
yet at the same time it also explicitly teaches, that the infants of 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 245 

such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized. 
This will require some explanation, while at the same time the 
investigation of it will bring us back again to the main subject 
which we wished to consider, — viz. the true doctrine of the 
Reformed churches, and especially of the Westminster standards, 
in regard to the nature, objects, and effects of the sacraments in 
general. 

The general view which Protestants have commonly taken 
of the sacraments is, that they are signs and seals of the cove- 
nant of grace ; that is, of the truths which unfold the provisions 
and arrangements of the covenant, and of the spiritual blessings 
which the covenant provides and secures, — not only signifying or 
representing Christ and the benefits of the new covenant, but 
sealing or confirming them, and in some sense applying them 
to believers. As the sacraments are the signs and seals of the 
covenant, so they belong properly to, and can benefit only, those 
who have an interest in the covenant, the foederati; and there is 
no adequate ground for counting upon their exerting their appro- 
priate influence in individual cases, apart from the faith which the 
participation in them ordinarily expresses, and which must exist 
before participation in them can be either warrantable or bene- 
ficial. These are the leading views which Protestant divines have 
usually put forth in regard to the sacraments in general, — that 
is, their general nature, design, and efficacy. In looking more 
closely at the doctrines of Protestant churches upon this subject, 
it is necessary to remember, not only that, as we have already 
explained, they usually assume, in their general statements, that 
the persons partaking in the sacraments are duly prepared, or 
possessed of the necessary preliminary qualifications, but also that, 
when statements are made which are intended to apply equally to 
baptism and the Lord's Supper, or when the general object and 
design of baptism are set forth in the abstract, — they have in their 
view, and take into their account, only adult baptism, the baptism 
of those who, after they have come to years of understanding, ask 
and obtain admission into the visible church by being baptized. 

This mode of contemplating the ordinance of baptism is so 
different from what we are accustomed to, that we are apt to be 
startled when it is presented to us, and find it somewhat difficult 
to enter into it. It tends greatly to introduce obscurity and con- 
fusion into our whole conceptions on the subject of baptism, that 



246 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

we see it ordinarily administered to infants, and very seldom to 
adults. This leads us insensibly to form very defective and 
erroneous conceptions of its design and effects, or rather to live 
with our minds very much in the condition of blanks, so far as 
concerns any distinct and definite views upon this subject. There 
is a great difficulty felt — a difficulty which Scripture does not 
afford us adequate materials for removing — in laying down any 
distinct and definite doctrine as to the bearing and efficacy of 
baptism in the case of infants, to whom alone ordinarily we see 
it administered. A sense of this difficulty is very apt to tempt 
us to remain contentedly in great ignorance of the whole sub- 
ject, without any serious attempt to understand distinctly what 
baptism is and means, and how it is connected with the general 
doctrine of the sacraments. And yet it is quite plain to any one 
who is capable of reflecting upon the subject, that it is adult 
baptism alone which embodies and brings out the full idea of 
the ordinance, and should be regarded as the primary type of it, 
— that from which mainly and principally we should form our 
conceptions of what baptism is and means, and was intended to 
accomplish. It is in this aspect that baptism is ordinarily spoken 
about and presented to our contemplation in the New Testament, 
and we see something similar in tracing the operations of our 
missionaries who are engaged in preaching the gospel in heathen 
lands. 

Adult baptism, then, exhibits the original and fundamental 
idea of the ordinance, as it is usually brought before us, and as 
it is directly and formally spoken about in the New Testament. 
And when baptism is contemplated in this light, there is no more 
difficulty in forming a distinct and definite conception regarding it 
than regarding the Lord's Supped. Of adult baptism we can say, 
just as we do of the Lord's Supper, that it is in every instance, 
according to the general doctrine of Protestants, either the sign 
and seal of a faith and a regeneration previously existing, already 
effected by God's grace, or else that the reception of it was a 
hypocritical profession of a state of mind and feeling which has 
no existence. We have no doubt that the lawfulness and the 
obligation of infant baptism can be conclusively established from 
Scripture ; but it is manifest that the general doctrine or theory 
just stated, with respect to the import and effect of the sacraments, 
and of baptism as a sacrament, cannot be applied fully in all its 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 247 

extent to the baptism of infants. The reason of this is, because 
Scripture does not afford us materials either for laying down any 
definite position as to a certain and invariable connection between 
baptism and spiritual blessings, — that is, for maintaining the 
doctrine of baptismal regeneration ; or for stating such a distinct 
and definite alternative with respect to the efficacy of the ordi- 
nance in individuals, as has been stated above in the case of adult 
baptism and the Lord's Supper. But notwithstanding these 
obvious considerations, we fear it is a very common thing for 
men, just because they ordinarily see infant, and very seldom see 
adult, baptism, to take the baptism of infants, with all the diffi- 
culties attaching, to give a precise and definite statement as to its 
design and effect in their case, and to allow this to regulate their 
whole conceptions with respect to this ordinance in particular, and 
even with respect to the sacraments in general. This is a very 
common process; and we could easily produce abundant evidence, 
both of its actual prevalence, and of its injurious bearing upon 
men's whole opinions on this subject. The right and reasonable 
course is plainly just the reverse of this, — viz. to regard adult 
baptism as affording the proper fundamental type of the ordi- 
nance, — to derive our great leading conceptions about baptism 
from the case, not of infant, but of adult, baptism, viewed in 
connection with the general theory or doctrine applicable to both 
sacraments; and then, since infant baptism is also fully warranted 
in Scripture, to examine what modifications the leading general 
views of the ordinance may or must undergo, when applied to the 
special and peculiar case of the baptism of infants. 

These views were acted upon, though not formally and ex- 
plicitly stated, by the Reformers in preparing their confessions of 
faith, and in their discussions of this subject. It is impossible to 
bring out from their statements about the sacraments a clear and 
consistent sense, except upon the hypothesis that, in laying down 
their general positions as to the nature, objects, and effects of the 
sacraments, they proceeded upon the assumption, that those partak- 
ing in these ordinances were duly qualified and rightly prepared ; 
and more particularly, that the persons baptized, in whom the true 
and full operation of baptism was exhibited, were adults, — adult 
believers. The Council of Trent, in their decrees and canons 
on the subject of justification, which in the Romish system com- 
prehends regeneration, and of which they asserted baptism, or the 



248 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

sacrament of faith, as they call it, to be the instrumental cause,* 
dealt with the subject on the assumption that they were describ- 
ing the process which takes place in the 'case of persons who, after 
they have attained to adult age, are led to embrace Christianity 
and to apply for baptism. And we find that the Reformers, in 
discussing these matters with their Romish opponents, accommo- 
dated themselves to this mode of putting the case ; and having 
thus adult baptism chiefly in their view, were led sometimes to 
speak as if they regarded baptism and regeneration as sub- 
stantially identical. They certainly did not mean to assert or 
concede the Popish principle, of an invariable connection between 
the outward ordinance and the spiritual blessing ; for it is quite 
certain, and can be conclusively established, that they rejected 
this. They adopted this mode of speaking, which at first sight is 
somewhat startling, 1st, because the Council of Trent discussed 
the subject of justification chiefly in its bearing upon the case 
of those who had not been baptized in infancy, and with whom, 
consequently, baptism, if it was not a mere hypocritical pretence, 
destitute of all worth or value, was, in the judgment of Pro- 
testants, a sign and seal of a faith and regeneration previously 
wrought and then existing ; and 2dly, because it was, when 
viewed in this aspect and application, that their great general 
doctrines, as to the design and efficacy of the sacraments in their 
bearing upon the justification of sinners, stood out for examination 
in the clearest and most definite form. This was the true cause 
of a mode of speaking sometimes adopted by the Reformers, 
which, to those imperfectly acquainted with their writings, and 
with the state of theological discussion at the time, might seem to 
countenance the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. 

It was very important to bring out fully and distinctly the 
nature and character of the sacraments as signs and seals of the 
covenant of grace and its benefits, the import of the profession 
implied in partaking in them, and the qualifications required for 
receiving them rightly ; and then to connect the statement of their 
actual effects with right views upon all these points. This process 
was at once the most obvious and the most effectual way of 
shutting out the erroneous and dangerous notions upon the sub- 
ject of the sacraments that prevailed in the Church of Rome. It 



* Session vi. c. 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 249 

was very important, with this view, to give a compendious and 
summary representation of what was set forth in Scripture as the 
sacramental principle or theory, as being equally applicable to 
both sacraments ; and to keep steadily before men's minds the con- 
sideration, that this could be held to be fully realized and exhibited 
only in those for whom the sacraments were mainly intended, and 
who were duly prepared for receiving and improving them aright. 
Their minds were filled with these principles, and they were 
anxious to set them forth, in opposition to the great sacramental 
system which had been excogitated by the schoolmen, and sanc- 
tioned by the Church of Rome. And it was because their minds 
were filled with these principles, that, though strenuously opposing 
the tenets of the Anabaptists, they yet saw clearly and admitted 
the somewhat peculiar and supplemental position held by infant 
baptism. They held it to be of primary importance to bring out 
fully the sacramental principle as exhibited in its entireness in 
adult baptism and the Lord's Supper ; and in aiming at accom- 
plishing this, they were not much concerned about putting forth 
definitions or descriptions of the sacraments or even of baptism, 
which could scarcely be regarded as comprehending infant bap- 
tism, or as obviously and directly applying to it. They never 
intended to teach baptismal regeneration, and they have said 
nothing that appears to teach it, or that could be supposed to 
teach it, by any except those who were utterly ignorant of the 
whole course of the discussion of these subjects as it was then 
conducted. They never intended to discountenance infant bap- 
tism ; on the contrary, they strenuously defended its lawfulness 
and obligation. But they certainly gave descriptions of the 
general nature, design, and effects of the sacraments, which, if 
literally interpreted and pressed, might be regarded as omitting it, 
or putting it aside. 

It is impossible to deny, that the general description which 
the Shorter Catechism gives of a sacrament teaches, by plain 
implication, that the sacraments, so far as regards adults, are 
intended only for believers ; while no Protestants, except some of 
the Lutherans, have ever held that infants are capable of exer- 
cising faith. It also teaches, by plain implication, in the pre- 
vious question, the 91st, that the wholesome influence of the 
sacraments is experienced only by those who " by faith receive 
them." All this is applied equally to baptism and the Lord's 



250 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

Supper. Its general import, as implying a virtual restriction 
of these ordinances to believers, is too clear to be misunder- 
stood or to admit of being explained away. And then, again, 
the apparent discrepancy between this great principle, and the 
position that " the infants of such as are members of the visible 
church are to be baptized," is too obvious to escape the notice of 
any one who deliberately examines the Catechism with a view to 
understand it. These considerations would lead us to expect 
to find that the discrepancy is only apparent, and that there is no 
great difficulty in pointing out a mode of reconciliation. The 
mode of reconciliation we have already hinted at. It is in sub- 
stance this, that infant baptism is to be regarded as a peculiar, 
subordinate, supplemental, exceptional thing, which stands indeed 
firmly based on its own distinct and special grounds, but which 
cannot well be brought within the line of the general abstract 
definition or description of a sacrament, as applicable to adult 
baptism and the Lord's Supper. 

The Westminster divines, then, have given a description of a 
sacrament, which does apply fully to adult baptism and the Lord's 
Supper, but which does not directly and in terminis comprehend 
infant baptism. This, which is the plain fact of the case, could 
only have arisen from their finding it difficult, if not impossible, 
to give a definition of the sacraments in their great leading fun- 
damental aspects, which would at the same time apply to and 
include the special case of the baptism of infants. This, again, 
implies an admission that the definition given of a sacrament 
does not apply fully and in all its extent to the special case of 
infant baptism ; while it implies, also, that the compilers of the 
Catechism thought it much more important to bring out fully, 
as the definition of a sacrament, all that could be truly pre- 
dicated equally of adult baptism and the Lord's Supper, than 
to try and form a definition that might be wide enough and 
vague enough to include infant baptism, — a topic of a peculiar 
and subordinate description. This is the only explanation and 
defence that can be given of the course of statement adopted in 
the Catechism. 

It may possibly occur to some, that since it is certain that the 
compilers of the Catechism held that it was the children of believers 
only that were to be baptized, and that they were to be baptized 
on the ground of their parents' faith, and the general principle of 



Essay V.] DOCTEINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 251 

covenant relationship based upon this, the word believers, in the 
definition of a sacrament, might include infants, viewed as one 
with their believing parents, and virtually comprehended in them. 
But, besides that this leaves untouched the statement which 
implies that spiritual benefit is derived from the sacraments only 
by " those who by faith receive them," we think it quite plain and 
certain, from the whole scope of the statement given in answer to 
the question, What is a sacrament? that the believers to whom 
the sacraments represent, seal, and apply Christ and His benefits, 
are those only who themselves directly and personally partake in 
the sacraments, and not those also who, though not believers 
themselves, may be, admitted to one of the sacraments because of 
their relationship to* believers. 

A similar doubt might be started about the meaning and appli- 
cation of the parallel passage in the Larger Catechism.* A sacra- 
ment is there described as " an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, 
in His church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within 
the covenant of grace, the benefits of His mediation, to strengthen 
and increase their faith," etc. Now there can be no doubt that, 
according to the prevailing opinions and the current usus loquendi 
of the period, — and, as we believe, in accordance with Scripture, — 
the expression, "those that are within the covenant of grace," might 
include the children of believers, who were regarded as fcederati, 
and as thus entitled to the "signa et sigilla foederis." But it is quite 
certain that the expression is not used here in this extended sense, 
or as including any but believers. For this sentence goes on 
immediately, without any change in the construction, and without 
any indication of alteration or restriction in regard to the per- 
sons spoken of, to say, that the sacraments were instituted "to 
strengthen and increase their faith," — implying, of course, that 
the persons here spoken of had faith before the sacraments came 
to bear upon them, or could confer upon them any benefit. 

There can, then, be no reasonable doubt that the Shorter 
Catechism, in defining or describing a sacrament, restricts itself 
to the case of adult believers ; and the only way of reconciling 
the definition with its teaching on the subject of infant baptism is 
by assuming that it is not to be applied absolutely and without 
all exception in other cases ; and that infant baptism, though 

* Q. 162. 



252 



ZWINGLE AND THE 



[Essay V. 



fully warranted by Scripture, does not correspond in all respects 
with the full sacramental principle in its utmost extent and 
clearness, as exhibited in adult baptism and the Lord's Supper, 
and must therefore be regarded as occupying a peculiar and 
supplemental position. We know no other way of showing 
the consistency with each other of the different statements con- 
tained in the Catechism. The principle we have explained re- 
futes the allegation of inconsistency or contradiction, and resolves 
the whole difficulty into a certain concession on the subject of 
infant baptism, — a concession not affecting the scriptural evi- 
dence for the maintenance of the practice of baptizing infants, 
but merely the fulness and completeness of the doctrinal explana- 
tion that should be given of its objects and effects. 

The explanation we have given upon this point is in full 
accordance with the views set forth in the Westminster Confession 
of Faith, and in the confessions of the Reformed churches gene- 
rally. They all of them assert the scriptural authority of infant 
baptism, while at the same time most of them, though with different 
degrees of clearness, present statements about the sacraments or 
about baptism, which do not very fully and directly apply to the 
baptism of infants.* We have been the more disposed to give 
some time to the explanation of the peculiar position and standing 
of the topic of infant baptism, because it is not merely indispens- 
able to the intelligent and consistent exposition of the Shorter 
Catechism, but also because ignorance or disregard of it produces 
much error and confusion in men's whole views with respect to the 
sacraments in general. Men who have not attended to and esti- 
mated aright this topic of the peculiar and subordinate place held 
by the subject of infant baptism are very apt to run into one or 



* Strange as it may seem, this holds 
true, to some extent, even of the Ar- 
ticles of the Church of England, 
though perhaps somewhat less fully 
and explicitly than in the case of any 
other of the Reformed churches. In 
the general statements about the 
sacraments in the 25th Article, and 
in the chief portion of the 27th, on 
baptism, there is nothing to suggest 
that infant baptism is comprehended 
in the description ; and, indeed, the 
general scope and spirit of the state- 
ments rather seem to ignore or pre- 



termit it, though there is not the same 
explicit and restricting reference to 
believers and faith which occurs in 
the Shorter Catechism. And then, 
again, the only express mention of 
infant baptism, which occurs in the 
end of the 27th Article, and which 
simply asserts that it "is in anywise 
to be retained in the church as most 
agreeable to the institution of Christ," 
brings it in very much in the same 
supplemental, exceptional sort of way, 
in which the Westminster standards 
deal with it. 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 253 

other of two extremes, — viz. 1st, That of lowering the true sacra- 
mental principle, as brought out in the general definition of a 
sacrament, and as exhibited fully in the case of adult baptism and 
the Lord's Supper, to the level of what suits the special case of 
infant baptism ; or 2d, That of raising the explanation propounded 
of the bearing and effect of infant baptism, up to a measure of 
clearness and fulness which really attaches only to adult baptism 
and the Lord's Supper. And as error is generally inconsistent, 
and extremes have a strong tendency to meet, cases have occurred 
in which both these opposite extremes have been exhibited by the 
same persons, in connection with that one source of error and 
confusion to which we have referred. The truth, as well as the 
importance, of some of the points which have been referred to in 
the course of the preceding statements, .will appear more clearly 
as we proceed to explain more fully and formally the general 
doctrine of the sacraments as set forth in the Westminster sym- 
bols, in accordance with the other confessions of the Reformed 
churches. 

The doctrine of the sacraments, or the sacramental principle, 
in the proper import of that expression, is intended, as we have 
explained, to embody the sum and substance of w T hat is taught or 
indicated in Scripture, as equally and alike applicable to both the 
ordinances to which the name of a sacrament is commonly given. 
Of course, nothing ought to be introduced into the definition or 
description of a sacrament, but what there is sufficient scriptural 
ground, more or less direct and explicit, and more or less clear 
and conclusive, for holding to be predicable equally and alike of 
baptism, — that is, adult baptism and the Lord's Supper. Besides 
the scriptural statements that bear directly upon these two ordi- 
nances separately, there are views suggested by their general 
character and position, taken in connection with general scriptural 
principles, to which it may be proper, in the first instance, to advert. 
There is not a great deal in Scripture that can be said to bear very 
directly upon the question, What is a sacrament? but there is a 
good deal that may be deduced from Scripture by good and neces- 
sary consequence. 

There are two different aspects in which the sacraments are 
to be regarded, — 1st, Simply as institutions or ordinances whose 
appointment by Christ stands recorded in Scripture, and whose 
celebration in the church, according to His appointment, may be 



254 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

contemplated or looked at by spectators ; and 2d, as acts which 
men perform, transactions in which men individually take a 
part ; — that is, they may be regarded either as mere instituted 
symbols, or also, and in addition, as symbolic actions which men 
perform. 

Viewed in the first of these aspects as symbols, they merely 
signify or represent (these two words are generally used synony- 
mously in this matter) spiritual blessings, Christ and the benefits 
of the new covenant, and the scriptural truths which make known, 
unfold, and offer these blessings to men ; while, in regard to the 
second aspect of them, this much at least must be evident in 
general, that the participation in the sacraments by men indivi- 
dually, is on their part an expression or profession of a state of 
mind and feeling, with reference to the truths which the outward 
symbols represent, and the blessings which they signify. Viewed 
in the first of these aspects as mere symbols, which have been 
instituted and described in Scripture, and which may be contem- 
plated or looked at, it is evident that the sacraments are merely, 
to use an expression which Calvin and other Reformers applied to 
them, appendages to the gospel, — that is, merely means of declar- 
ing and bringing before our minds in another wa}'-, by a different 
instrumentality, what is fully set forth in the statements of Scrip- 
ture. In baptism, viewed in this light, God is just telling us, by 
means of outward symbols instead of words, that men in their 
natural condition need to be washed from guilt and depravity, and 
that full provision has been made for effecting this, through the 
shedding of Christ's blood and the effusion of His Spirit. In the 
Lord's Supper, in like manner, He is just telling us that Christ's 
body was broken and that His blood was shed for men ; and that 
in this way, full provision has been made, not only for restoring 
men to the enjoyment of God's favour, and creating them again 
after His image, but for affording them abundance of spiritual 
nourishment, and enabling them to grow up in all things unto 
Him who is the Head. The sacraments as symbols thus teach, 
by outward and visible representations, the leading truths which 
are revealed in Scripture concerning the way of salvation ; and 
teach them in a manner peculiarly fitted, according to the prin- 
ciples of our constitution, to bring them home impressively to our 
understandings and our hearts. 

And it is important to notice that, even in this simplest and 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 255 

most elementary view of the sacraments, they may truly and rea- 
sonably be called seals as well as signs, — they may be said not only 
to signify or represent, but to seal. A seal is something external, 
usually appended to a deed or document, or impressed upon a sub- 
stance which forms the subject of negotiation or arrangement, and 
it is intended to strengthen or confirm conviction or faith, expecta- 
tion or confidence. A seal in this sense, the only sense in which it 
can apply to the sacraments, is a thing of no real intrinsic value or 
importance apart from the engagement ratified. Its use and efficacy 
are purely conventional. Seals are based, indeed, upon a natural 
principle in our complex constitution, in virtue of which external 
objects or actions connected with, or added to, declarations, engage- 
ments, or promises, are regarded as tying or binding more strongly 
those from whom these deeds or documents proceed, and as thus 
tending to strengthen and confirm the faith and the hope of those 
to whom they are directed,, It is this principle in our constitution 
which is the source and origin, the rationale and defence, not only 
of the sealing of deeds and documents, — that is, of the practice of 
appending a seal to the signature of the names attached to them, — 
but of the whole series of outward significant rites and ceremonies, 
which in ail ages and countries have been associated with cove- 
nants and treaties, with bargains and barterings. These sealings, 
and other similar rites and ceremonies, which in such variety have 
prevailed in all ages and countries in connection with transactions 
of this sort, have been always regarded and felt as somehow bind- 
ing the parties more strongly to' their respective statements and 
engagements, and as thus strengthening their reliance upon each 
other, in reference to everything that had been declared or pro- 
mised. And yet it is quite plain, that these sealings and other 
rites and ceremonies usually connected with compacts and bar- 
gains, can scarcely be said to possess any value apart from the 
engagement sealed, or to exert a real influence in effecting any 
important result. The only essential things in transactions of this 
sort are the deeds or documents, embodying a statement of the 
things arranged or agreed upon, with all their circumstances and 
conditions, and the signatures of the parties, binding themselves 
to the terms set forth in the deed. 

Applying these obvious principles to Christianity and salvation, 
it is plain that the essential things, as bearing on the practical 
result, are arrangements and proposals, made and revealed by God, 



256 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

understood and accepted by men. It is indispensable that men 
understand the import of the offers and proposals made to them, 
be satisfied that they come from God, and then accept and act 
upon them. The covenant of grace is thus substantially a pro- 
posal made by God to men, which is accepted by them ; and the 
essential things are, the substance of the proposal set forth as in 
a deed or document, and the concurrence of the parties, as if 
attested by their signatures. The sacraments, according to the 
views which have generally prevailed among Protestants, are signs 
and seals of this covenant, — that is, as signs they embody in out- 
ward elements (for we are not speaking at present of the sacra- 
mental actions) the substance of what is set forth more fully and 
particularly in the written word ; and this additional, superadded, 
external embodiment of the provisions and arrangements, is re- 
garded as occupying the place and serving the purpose of a seal 
appended to a signature to a deed; not certainly as if it could 
very materially affect the result, so long as we had the deed and 
the signatures, but still operating, according to the well-known 
principles of our constitution, in giving some confirmation to our 
impressions, if not our convictions, of the reality and certainty or 
reliabilitv of the whole transaction. 

But we proceed to advert to the second and higher view that 
must obviously be taken of the sacraments. They were intended 
not so much to be read about or to be looked at, as to be parti- 
cipated in. Men are individually to be washed with water, in the 
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; and they are 
individually to eat bread and to drink wine at the Lord's table, 
in remembrance of Christ. This being the case, the questions 
naturally arise, What is the meaning and what the object of those 
acts which they perform % Why did God require these things at 
their hands % What is the effect which the doing of these things 
is intended to produce ? and, What are the principles which re- 
gulate and determine the production of the resulting effects? 
Now, as bearing upon the answer to these questions, there are 
some positions which are generally admitted, and are attended 
with no difficulty. The two leading aspects in which the sacra- 
ments, viewed as actions which men perform, are represented in 
Scripture are, — first, as duties which God requires of us; and 
second, as means of grace or privileges which He appoints and 
bestows. And again, under the first of these heads, viz. com- 






Essay V.] DOCTKINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 257 

manded duties, there are two views that may be taken of them, — 
1st, as acts of worship ; and 2d, as public professions of Chris- 
tianity. It is, of course, men's duty to render to God the acts of 
worship, and to make the professions, which He requires of them. 
The sacraments seem plainly to possess these two characters. In 
participating in them we are rendering an act of worship to God, 
and we are making a public profession by an outward act, and all 
this He has required at our hands, or imposed upon us as a duty. 
If this be so, then it follows that any general principles which 
are indicated in Scripture, or involved in the nature of the case, 
as being rightly applicable to acts of worship and to public pro- 
fessions, must be applied to them. Whatever is necessary to make 
an act of worship reasonable and acceptable to God, and whatever 
is necessary to make a public profession intelligent and honest, 
must be found in men's participation in the sacraments, in order 
to make it fitted to serve any of its intended purposes. And this 
most simple and obvious view of the general nature and character 
of the sacramental actions ought not to be overlooked or forgotten, 
as it is well fitted, when remembered and applied, to guard us 
both against error in doctrine and delusion in practice. 

It is the second of these views of them, however, — that which 
represents them as outward public professions, — which bears more 
immediately upon their mode of operation and their actual effects, 
as privileges or means of grace. All admit that the sacraments 
embody or involve a public profession of a certain state of mind 
and feeling. Indeed, this is plainly implied in their character 
as symbolical or emblematical ordinances. We cannot conceive 
that it should have been required as a duty of those to whom 
the gospel is preached, that they should be baptized and should 
partake in the Lord's Supper, unless this washing with water, and 
this eating bread and drinking wine, symbolized and expressed 
some state of mind, some conviction or feeling or purpose, bear- 
ing upon their relation to God, and the salvation of their souls. 
That participation in the sacraments is a discriminating mark 
or badge of what may be called, in some sense, a profession 
of Christianity, and that it involves an engagement to perform 
certain duties, is admitted by all, even those who take the lowest 
views of their nature and design. And all orthodox divines hold 
that this constitutes one end and object of the institution of these 
ordinances, though they regard it only as a subordinate one. In 

VOL. I. 17 



258 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

the very important document formerly referred to, called " Con- 
sensus Tigurinus," prepared by Calvin, and embodying the agree- 
ment among the Swiss churches on the whole subject of the 
sacraments, while it is admitted that there are various .ends and 
objects of the sacraments, — such as, that they may be marks and 
badges of a Christian profession and union or brotherhood, — that 
they may be incitements to thanksgivings and exercises of faith 
and a pious life, and engagements binding to this, — it is laid 
down, " that the one principal end of these ordinances is, that 
God, by them, may attest, represent, and seal His grace to us."* 
This mode of statement is in accordance with the views gene- 
rally entertained by the Reformed divines, and it is adopted in the 
Westminster Confession,-]- where, after describing it as the end or 
object of the sacraments " to represent Christ and His benefits, and 
to confirm our interest in Him," it adds, evidently in the way of 
suggesting some additional points of less fundamental importance, 
" as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto 
the church and the rest of the world, and solemnly to engage them 
to the service of God in Christ." These subordinate ends of the 
sacraments, connected with their character and functions as badges 
of a public profession and solemn engagements to duty, do not in 
themselves require lengthened explanation, as they are simple and 
obvious, and have not given rise to much discussion, except in so far 
as the question has been raised, as to the precise import and amount 
of the profession which participation in the sacraments involves. 

This is a question of some difficulty and importance ; and it is 
intimately connected with the investigation of the great primary 
end or object of the sacraments, and with their character and 
function as means of grace. It is generally admitted by Protes- 
tant divines, that the sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant 
of grace, — that is, of the truths and promises setting forth the 
provisions and arrangements which may be said to constitute the 
covenant, and of the spiritual blessings which the covenant offers 
and secures ; and these terms, accordingly, are applied to them in 
almost all the confessions of the Reformed churches. But even 
where there is a concurrence in the use of these epithets, there is 
still room for error and confusion on some important topics con- 
nected with this matter. The leading questions connected with 



Niemeyer, p. 193. f C. 27, s. 1. 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 259 

the sacraments may be ranked under two heads, — 1st, What are 
their objects or ends, comprehending the purposes for which they 
were instituted, and the effects which they actually produce ? 
and 2d, Who are their proper subjects, the parties for whom they 
were intended, those who are qualified to partake in them lawfully 
and beneficially ? These two heads of investigation, which may 
be briefly described as respecting, the first the objects, and the 
second the subjects, of the sacraments, are very closely connected 
with each other. The settlement of either of these questions 
would go far to determine the other. If we had once ascertained 
wdiat is the leading primary object of the sacraments, there would 
be no great difficulty in deducing from this, viewed in connection 
with other doctrines plainly taught in Scripture, what kind of 
persons ought to partake in them ; and if we once knew who are 
the parties that ought to partake in them, we might from this 
infer a good deal, positively as well as negatively, in regard to the 
purpose they were intended to serve. On some grounds it would 
seem to be more natural and expedient to begin with examining 
the objects or ends of the sacraments. But as we have been led, 
in the arrangement we have adopted, to advert to the view of the 
sacraments as badges of a public profession, and as the considera- 
tion of this topic, which has not yet been completed, is connected 
rather with the examination of the subjects than the objects of the 
sacraments, we shall consider, in the first place, in contemplat- 
ing them as means of grace, the question, Who are the parties 
for whom they were intended ? We are the less concerned about 
following what might seem to be the more strictly logical order, 
because our object is rather explanation than defence; it is rather 
to bring out what the doctrine of the Reformed confessions, and 
especially of the Westminster symbols, on the general subject of 
the sacraments is, than to establish its truth and to vindicate it 
from objections ; — as we have in view chiefly the case of those 
who have professed to believe these symbols, but who still exhibit 
a great deal of ignorance in regard to their meaning and import. 

We have mentioned, as the first and most general division that 
obtains on the subject of the sacraments, that they may be regarded 
either, first, as duties which God requires ; or second, as means 
of grace. The difficulties which have arisen, and the discussions 
which have been carried on respecting them, have turned chiefly 
upon their character and functions as means of grace. It is uni- 



260 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

versally admitted that the sacraments are means of grace ; and the 
great general idea involved in this position is this, that they are 
institutions which God intended and appointed to be, in some sense, 
the instruments or channels of conveying to men spiritual bless- 
ings, and in the due and right use of which men are warranted to 
expect to receive the spiritual blessings they stand in need of. In 
this wide and general sense, even those who hold the lowest view 
of the sacraments admit that they are means of grace ; while it 
is also true that the great differences in doctrine which have been 
maintained by different churches on the whole subject of the 
sacraments, resolve very much into the different senses in which 
the position that they are means of grace may be explained. In 
the wide sense above stated, the position that the sacraments are 
means of grace may be conclusively inferred from the fact, that 
God has appointed them, and required the observance of them at 
our hands. As the outward acts which constitute the observance 
of the sacraments are in themselves not moral, but merely positive 
or indifferent, we are warranted to believe that God appointed them 
solely for our benefit, and because He intended them to be in some 
way instruments or channels of conveying to us spiritual blessings. 
The Romish doctrine upon this subject is, that the sacraments 
contain the grace which they signify; that they confer grace 
always and certainly, where men do not put an obstacle in the 
way ; that they do this ex opere ojjerato, or by some sort of physical 
or intrinsic power bestowed upon them, apart from the state of 
mind of the recipient ; that baptism is the instrumental cause of 
justification, as including both remission of sin and regeneration ; 
and that the Lord's Supper invariably conveys spiritual nourish- 
ment. There are some points, however, involved in the exposition 
of these doctrines, which have not been explicitly settled by the 
authority of the church, and in regard to which some latitude is 
left for a difference of opinion. Among Protestants, again, High 
Churchmen, and men disposed to exalt the value and efficacy of 
the sacraments, have generally adopted, or at least approximated 
to, the Romish doctrine as explained by its more reasonable de- 
fenders, and have been disposed to allege that the controversies 
with the Church of Rome upon this subject, resolve very much 
into disputes about words or points of no great importance ; while 
sounder Protestants have, in general, met the Romish doctrines 
with decided opposition. At the same time it must be admitted, 



Essay V.] DOCTKINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 261 

that it is not easy to fix upon any definite modes of state- 
ment, which can be said to be distinctly Protestant as opposed to 
Romanism, about the true character and functions of the sacra- 
ments as means of grace, viewed apart from the doctrine held with 
regard to their subjects and objects. It is generally supposed that 
the strongest statement to which the Church of Rome is pledged 
on this point is, that the sacraments " contain the grace which 
they signify or represent," implying that the grace resides or is 
laid up in them, and that they give it out ; and yet Calvin, in his 
" Antidote to the Council of Trent," seventh session, admits that 
there is a sense in which it is true " sacramentis contineri gratiam 
quam figurant." He asserts also that those who allege, that by 
the sacraments grace is conferred upon us when we do not put an 
obstacle in the way, overturn the whole power of the sacraments ; 
while he distinctly admits that the sacraments are instrumental 
causes of conferring grace upon us, though the power of God is 
not tied to them, and though they produce no effect whatever 
apart from the faith of the recipient. And, moreover, we find, 
upon a principle formerly explained, that in dealing (sixth session) 
with the position that baptism is the instrumental cause of justi- 
fication, he rather objects to the omission of the gospel or the 
truth, and to the high place assigned to baptism, than meets the 
position of the council with a direct negative. His statement 
is this : " It is a great absurdity to make baptism alone the instru- 
mental cause. If this be so, what becomes of the gospel ? Will 
it not even get into the lowest corner ! But, they say, baptism is 
the sacrament of faith. True ; but when all is said, I will still 
maintain that it is nothing but an appendage to the gospel (evan- 
gelii appendiceal). They act preposterously in giving it the first 
place ; and this is just as if one should say that the instrumental 
cause of a house is the handle of the workman's trowel. He who, 
putting the gospel in the background, numbers baptism among 
the causes of salvation, shows thereby that he does not know what 
baptism is or means, or what is its function and use."* It would 
be easy to show that there are many other eminent divines who 
have differed from each other as to the phraseology that ought to 
be employed in explaining the position that the sacraments are 
means of grace, some asserting and others denying that they are 



Calvin, Tractatus Theologici omnes, Amstel 1667, p. 242. 



262 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

causes of grace, — that they confer, or convey, or bestow spiritual 
blessings, — while yet there is no very material difference of opinion 
among them ; as is evident from their agreement in regard to the 
two important questions, as to the persons for whom the sacra- 
ments are intended, and the purposes they were instituted to serve.. 
And on this ground we shall now, as has been intimated, consider 
— 1st, the subjects, and 2d, the objects, of the sacraments ; assum- 
ing only, in the meantime, that the position, universally admitted, 
that the sacraments are means of grace, implies that, in some way 
or other, they are employed by God as instrumental or auxiliary 
in bestowing upon some men some spiritual blessings. 

1. Let us first advert, then, to the subjects of the sacraments, 
or the persons for whom they were intended. We have already 
seen that, both in the Larger and the Shorter Catechism, the 
Westminster Assembly have distinctly laid down the position that- 
the sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, are intended for 
believers, for men who had already and previously been led to 
embrace Christ as their Saviour ; and that they were not in the 
least deterred from the explicit assertion of this great principle by 
its appearing to exclude or ignore the practice of infant baptism, 
which they believed to be fully sanctioned by Scripture. This 
great principle is not set forth in the Confession of Faith quite so 
explicitly as it is in the Catechisms, but it is taught there by very 
plain implication. The Confession* lays it down as the first and 
principal end or object of the sacraments, of both equally and 
alike, " to represent Christ and His benefits, and to confirm our 
interest in Him/' — this last clause implying, that those for whom 
the sacraments were intended, have already and previously ac- 
quired a personal interest in Christ, which could be only by their 
union to Him through faith. It further,! in speaking still of 
the sacraments, and of course of baptism as well as the Lord's 
Supper, asserts that "the word of institution contains a promise 
of benefit to worthy receivers ; " and worthy receivers, in the full 
import of the expression, are, in the case of adult baptism, believers. 
In the next chapter, the twenty-eighth, the description given of 
baptism manifestly applies only to believing adults. It is there 
described as a u sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by 
Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party bap- 






* Ch. xxvii. sec. 1. f Sec. 3. 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 263 

tized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and 
seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of 
regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, 
through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life." It is quite true 
that infants, as well as adults, though incapable of faith, must be 
ingrafted into Christ, and must receive regeneration and remis- 
sion ; and that without this, indeed, they cannot be saved. But 
the statement in the Confession plainly assumes, that each indi- 
vidual baptized not only should have the necessary preliminary 
qualifications, but should be himself exercised and satisfied upon 
this point ; and should thus be prepared to take part, intelligently 
and consciously, in the personal assumption of the practical obliga- 
tions which baptism implies. 

This is sufficient to show that the teaching of the Confession 
is quite in harmony with that of the Catechisms, though upon 
this particular point it is not altogether so explicit. It holds true, 
indeed, generally — we might say universally — of the Reformed 
churches, as distinguished from the Lutheran, and of almost all 
the Reformed theologians, that though firm believers in the divine 
authority of infant baptism, they never hesitate to lay clown the 
general positions, that the sacraments are intended for believers ; 
that participation in them assumes the previous and present ex- 
istence of faith in all who rightly receive them ; and that they 
produce their appropriate beneficial effects only through the 
operation and exercise of faith in those who partake in them. 
The Reformed divines, not holding the doctrine of baptismal re- 
generation, did not regard the baptism of infants as being of suffi- 
cient importance to modify the general doctrine they thought 
themselves warranted to lay down with respect to the sacraments, 
as applicable to adult baptism and the Lord's Supper. And it 
is interesting and instructive to notice, that the adoption by the 
Lutherans of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, led them to 
be much more careful of laying down any general statements, 
either about the sacraments or about baptism, which virtually 
ignored the baptism of infants. They are much more careful* 
than the Reformed divines, either expressly and by name to bring 
in infant baptism into their general definitions or descriptions, 
or at least to leave ample room for it, so that there may be no 
appearance of its being omitted or forgotten. It may be worth 
while to give a specimen of this. Buddgeus, one of the best of the 



264 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

Lutheran divines, a man whose works exhibit a very fine combina- 
tion of ability and good sense, learning and evangelical unction, 
in treating of the effect of baptism, which, he says, may also be 
regarded as the end or object of the ordinance, lays it down, that 
it is " with respect to infants, regeneration, and with respect to 
adults, the confirming and sealing (confirmatio et obsignatio) of the 
faith of which they ought to be possessed before they are admitted 
to baptism."* In contrast with this, many of the Reformed 
divines asserted, without any hesitation, that the great leading 
object and effect of the sacraments, and of course of baptism as 
well as of the Lord's Supper, was just the confirmatio fidei, — that 
is, the confirming and strengthening of the faith, which must, or at 
least should, have existed in the case of adults before either sacra- 
ment was received. 

This, however, bears rather upon the objects than the subjects 
of the sacraments. And in returning to the latter of these topics, 
we would lay before our readers, what we regard as a very com- 
plete and comprehensive summary of the doctrine of the Reformed 
churches upon this point, in the words of Martin Yitringa, in 
his " Adnotationes " to the " Doctrina Christianas Religionis per 
Aphorismos summatim descripta" of Campegius Vitringa : — 

" From these quotations it clearly appears, that the common doctrine of our 
divines concerning the proper subjects of the sacraments amounts to this : — 

" 1st, That the sacraments have been instituted only for those who have 
already received the grace of God, — the called, the regenerate, the believing, 
the converted, those who are in covenant with God ; and also that it is proper 
for those to come to them who have true faith and repentance. 

" 2d, That they who receive the sacraments are already, before receiving 
them, partakers through faith of Christ and His benefits, and are therefore 
justified and sanctified before they take the sacraments. 

" 3d, That faith is the medium, the mouth, and the hand, by which we 
rightly receive and perceive the sacraments. 

" Uli, That the faith of those who lawfully receive the sacraments is 
confirmed and increased by them, and that they are more closely united to 
Christ. 

• " bth, That those only who receive the sacraments in faith have, in the use 
of them, the promise of the remission of sins and of eternal life bestowed, 
sealed, and applied in a singular way, just as if God were addressing them 
individually, and were promising and sealing to them remission of sins and 
eternal life ; and thus believers are rendered more certain about their com- 



"Theologia Dogmatica," lib. v. c. i. s. 7. 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 265 

immion with Christ and His benefits, so that they can certainly determine that 
Christ belongs to them with His gifts. 

" 6th, That by the sacraments the promises of the covenant of grace are 
offered and sealed, under the condition of true faith and penitence. 

11 7th, That only true believers and true penitents, using the sacraments 
worthily, receive not only the signs, but also the things signified, which are 
sealed to them, and also that they only receive them with benefit and advantage. 

" 8th, That God wishes the sacraments to be administered to those who are 
possessed of true faith and unfeigned repentance ; but that the ministers of the 
church ought to admit to the sacraments those who make a profession of faith 
and penitence, and do not openly contradict it Joy their life and conduct, and 
that they, before coming to the sacraments, ought to be admonished to try them- 
selves, whether they have true faith and repentance, lest, being destitute of faith 
and repentance, they should receive the sacraments to their condemnation. 

" 9th, That unbelieving and impenitent persons receive only the naked signs 
but not the things signified ; that nothing is sealed to them ; that, moreover, 
they profane and contemn the sacraments ; and that from this profanation 
and contempt the sacraments not only do not benefit but hurt them, and 
bring to them condemnation and destruction ; and then, that the sacraments, 
when administered to unbelieving and impenitent persons, remain sacraments 
so far as God is concerned, but so far as concerns the unbelieving and impeni- 
tent, lose the nature and power of a sacrament. 

" 10th, That the sacraments do not, in the first instance, bestow grace, faith, 
and penitence, and are not the instruments of producing the beginnings of 
faith and penitence, but only confirm, increase, and seal them."* 

It will be observed that all these important doctrinal state 
ments are made concerning the sacraments, and of course are 
intended to apply equally and alike to baptism and the Lord's 
Supper ; and that the sum and substance of what is here asserted 
of both these ordinances is, that, in the case of adults, they were 
intended only for persons who have already been enabled to be- 
lieve and repent, and that it is believers only who do or can derive 
any benefit from partaking in them, all others using them only to 
their own condemnation. We do not adopt every expression in 
this summary just as it stands. But we have no doubt that, in its 
substance, it is in full accordance with the teaching of Scripture, 
and of the Reformed as distinguished from the Lutheran churches. 
Upon the second of these points, indeed, — the historical question' 
of the identity of these views with those of the Reformed churches 
and of the leading Reformed divines of the sixteenth and seven- 
teenth centuries, — Yitringa has produced his evidence at length. 



* C. xxiv. torn. vi. p. 489. 



266 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

His quotations fill about twenty pages, and are certainly amply 
sufficient to establish his position. They prove that the quotation 
we have produced, contains a correct summary of the doctrine of 
the Reformed churches in regard to the proper subjects of the 
sacraments. Vitringa gives extracts from eight or ten of the con- 
fessions of the Reformation period, and from above fifty of the 
most eminent divines of that and the succeeding century. He has 
thus brought together a vast store of materials, abundantly suffi- 
cient to establish his position, so far as authority is concerned ; and 
we think it may be worth while to give the names of the divines 
from whom he produces his extracts. They are Zwingle, GEcolam- 
padius, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Ursi- 
nus, Olevianus, Sadeel, Whitaker, Aretus, Sohnius, Polanus, 
Chamier, Junius, Perkins, Bucanus, Kuchlinus,»Acronius, Trel- 
catius, Scharpius, G. J. Yossius, Maccovius, Walaeus, Rivetus, 
Amyraldus, Altingius, Forbes, Voetius, Wendelinus, Cocceius, 
Hottinger, Heidanus, Maresius, Venema, Burman, Mastricht, Wit- 
sius, Turretine, Heidegger, Leyclecker, Braunius, Marckius, Roell, 
Meyer, Gerdes, Wyttenbach ; in short, all the greatest divines of 
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Here is a storehouse of 
names and quotations, which might enable any one to set up as an 
erudite theologian by means of a stock of second-hand authorities. 
We are dealing at present only with the historical and not 
with the scriptural view of the case ; but we may briefly advert 
to the kind of proof by which it can be shown, that the proper 
subjects of the sacrament are only believing and regenerated men. 
The general place or position of the sacraments seems plainly to 
indicate that they were intended only for those who had already 
been led to embrace Christ, and had been born again of His word. 
It is evident, from all the representations given us on this subject 
in the inspired account of the labours of the apostles, that men 
first of all had the gospel preached to them, were warned of their 
guilt and danger as sinners, and were instructed in the way of 
salvation through Christ ; and that thus, through the effectual 
working of God's Spirit, they were enabled to believe what they 
were told, to embrace Christ freely offered to them, and to receive 
Him as their Lord and Master. They were told, among other 
things, that it was Christ's will that they should be baptized, and 
should thereby publicly profess their faith in Him, and be formally 
admitted into the society which He had founded. When, in these 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 267 

or in similar circumstances, and upon these grounds, a man asks 
and obtains the administration to him of baptism (of course we 
speak at present only of adults, for, upon grounds formerly ex- 
plained, we must form our primary and leading conceptions of the 
import and object of this ordinance from the baptism of adults, 
and not of infants), the application seems plainly to carry upon 
the face of it, a profession or declaration, that he has been led to 
choose Christ as his Saviour and his Master, and is determined in 
every way to follow out this profession of entire dependence and 
of implicit subjection. If faith and regeneration are necessary 
preparations and qualifications for baptism, they must of course 
exist in all who come to the Lord's table, which, from its nature, 
and from the place it occupies in the apostolic history, must 
manifestly come after baptism. 

These obvious general considerations tell in favour of the 
position, that the sacraments were instituted and intended only 
for believers ; and this view is confirmed by a closer examination 
of the particular features and provisions of the ordinances them- 
selves. In regard to the Lord's Supper, it is generally admitted, 
that it is intended for, and can be lawfully and beneficially par- 
taken of only by, those who have already been received into God's 
family, and are living by faith in His Son. An attempt, indeed, 
was made in the course of the Erastian controversy, as conducted 
at the time of the Westminster Assembly, to set up the notion 
that the Lord's Supper is a converting ordinance, and may there- 
fore be rightly partaken of by those who have not yet believed 
and been regenerated. But this notion, manifestly got up merely 
for the purpose of undermining ecclesiastical discipline, was un- 
answerably exposed by George Gillespie, in the third book of his 
"Aaron's Rod Blossoming." And when a similar notion was, 
with a similar purpose, promulgated about a century later among 
the Congregationalists of New England, it was again put down, 
with equal ability and success, by Jonathan Edwards, in his 
"Inquiry into the Qualifications for Communion." The notion 
has not again, so far as we are aware, been revived in any such 
circumstances as to entitle it to notice. It is otherwise in regard 
to baptism. Some men seem to shrink from laying down the 
position, either that the sacraments, or that baptism, should be 
held to be intended for believers, and of course to require or pre- 
suppose faith and regeneration, because this leaves out and seems 



268 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

to exclude the case of infant baptism, — a difficulty which neither 
the Reformers nor the compilers of the Westminster standards, 
though decided psedobaptists, allowed to influence or modify their 
statements. Others take w T ider and more definite ground, and 
endeavour to establish a great disparity between baptism and the 
Lord's Supper as to their import and objects, and to disprove the 
equal applicability to both these ordinances, of the definition and 
description usually given of a sacrament. No one, indeed, can 
deny, that there are some points in which baptism and the Lord's 
Supper stand alone and resemble each other. All admit that both 
these ordinances are emblems or symbolical representations of 
scriptural truths, fitted and intended to embody and to exhibit 
the great doctrines revealed in the word of God concerning the 
salvation of sinners. This description is undoubtedly true of these 
ordinances so far as it goes. It is admitted by all Protestants, 
that this description applies equally and alike to baptism and the 
Lord's Supper, and that there are no other institutions under the 
Christian economy to which it does apply. But the question is, 
Can we not get materials in Scripture for giving a more complete 
and specific account of what is equally true of these two ordinances, 
and may therefore be set forth as the full and adequate descrip- 
tion of the sacraments ? and more especially, have w T e not materials 
for making statements of a more precise and specific kind, both 
about the subjects and the objects of these ordinances, that shall 
apply equally to both of them ? This at least is what has been 
generally maintained and acted upon by Protestant divines. They 
have embodied the substance of these materials in their description 
of a sacrament ; and the leading features of this description, as set 
forth in the Westminster standards, are, that both ordinances, 
equally and alike, are intended for believers, and represent, seal, 
and apply to believers Christ and His benefits.' 

So far as concerns the subjects of the sacraments, the topic 
with which at present we have more immediately to do, it is gene- 
rally admitted, that partaking in the Lord's Supper implies a 
profession of faith in Christ, and is therefore warrantable and 
beneficial only to believers. But many, and we fear a growing 
number, refuse to admit this principle as applicable to baptism. 
It is contended, not only that infants who are incapable of faith 
ought to be baptized (a position which all the Reformers and all 
the confessions of the Reformed churches decidedly maintained, 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 269 

though they did not allow it to affect their general definition of 
a sacrament), but also that adults may be admitted to baptism, 
though they are not, and do not profess to be, believers and re- 
generate persons, — baptism, it is alleged, not expressing or im- 
plying a profession of believing in Christ, but only a profession 
of a willingness to be instructed in the principles of Christianity. 
This notion is flatly opposed to the leading views with respect to 
the sacraments which have always prevailed in the Protestant 
churches, and been embodied in the Reformed confessions. But 
it seems now to prevail to a considerable extent among the Con- 
gregationalists of this country. And we fear that it is likely to 
continue to prevail, because while it can be defended with consider- 
able plausibility in. argument, it has also this important practical 
advantage, that it furnishes a warrant, or an excuse, for baptizing 
the infants of persons who could not be regarded as qualified to 
be members of the Christian church in full standing, or as admis- 
sible to the Lord's table. There is a very elaborate and ingenious 
defence of this view of the import and object of baptism, and of 
the absence of all similarity in these respects between it and the 
Lord's Supper, in Dr Halley's work, entitled, u Baptism, the De- 
signation of the Catechumens, not the Symbol of the Members, 
of the Christian Church," which Dr Wardlaw, in reply to whom 
chiefly it was written, did not answer, and which Dr W. Lindsay 
Alexander has pronounced to be unanswerable. We think it can, 
and it certainly should, be answered. But this we cannot attempt 
at present, our object being chiefly explanation rather than de- 
fence. The attempt to make so wide a gulf between baptism and 
the Lord's Supper, and to extend the application of baptism be- 
yond the range of the membership of the church, so as to include 
all who are placed, by their own voluntary act, or that of their 
parents, under the church's superintendence and instruction, while 
neither in connection with their own baptism nor that of their 
children are they held to make a profession of faith and regene- 
ration, is, of course, flatly opposed to the definition or description 
of a sacrament, given in the confessions of the Reformed churches 
as applicable to both ordinances. It is also, we are persuaded, 
inconsistent with every consideration suggested by the symbolic or 
emblematic character of the ordinance as an outward act, implying 
a declaration or profession of a certain state of mind and feeling 
on the part of the person baptized, and with all that is asserted 



270 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay ' V. 

or indicated in Scripture as to the connection between baptism on 
the one hand, and remission and regeneration on the other. 

It is, as we have explained, of fundamental importance in 
judging of these symbolical ordinances, to attend to the profession 
implied in the outward act, and to the correspondence between 
the outward act and the state of mind and heart of the recipient. 
When a man asks, in obedience to Christ's commands, to be 
solemnly washed with water, in the name of the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost, and when, in compliance with this request, 
he has baptism administered to him, he seems as plainly and as 
explicitly to make a profession of faith in Christ, as when he 
applies for and obtains admission to the Lord's table. Baptism, 
indeed, may be said to be a formal and solemn entering into 
Christ's service, implying a promise to be thereafter governed and 
guided by Him. And it surely is this, at least, — that is, this is 
just about as low a view as can be taken of the ordinance, and of 
the act of engaging in it. But even this view of it implies, that 
in the honest and intelligent reception of baptism, such views of 
Christ are professed as presuppose the existence of saving faith. 
Men cannot honestly and intelligently enter Christ's service, and 
profess their unreserved submission to His authority, unless and 
until they have been led to adopt such views of what is revealed 
in Scripture concerning Him, as imply and produce true faith in 
Him as a Saviour. Why should any man desire and ask to be 
washed with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost, unless he has already been led to adopt such views 
of the three Persons of the Godhead, and of the way of salvation, 
as must have led him to embrace Christ as all his salvation and 
all his desire ? In short, an application to be baptized, and the 
being actually baptized as the result of the application, plainly 
imply a profession, that the person so acting has been already led 
to believe in Christ, to receive and accept of Him as his Saviour 
and his Master; and that he intends to profess or declare, by being 
baptized, the views he has been brought to entertain concerning 
Christ, and the relation into which he has been led to enter with 
respect to Him, and to pledge himself to the discharge of all the 
obligations which these views and that relation impose. When 
this state of mind and feeling has not been produced, we cannot 
conceive that the baptism of an adult can be an honest and intel- 
ligent act. The nature of the act itself, and the almost universal 



Essay V.] DOCTKINE OF THE SACKAMENTS. 271 

consent of the Christian church, in every age and country down 
till the present day, attach this meaning and significance to the 
baptism of an adult ; and if so, the baptism of any one who has 
not believed and been born again, must be a hypocritical form. 

This view of the matter is confirmed, we think, by all that is 
said in the New Testament, whether in explicit statement or in 
indirect allusion, concerning the relation between baptism and the 
great spiritual blessings which are invariably connected with faith 
in Christ, viz. remission and regeneration. The relation subsist- 
ing between baptism and these fundamental blessings involves a 
discussion of the whole topics comprehended in the controversy 
about baptismal justification and regeneration ; and on this we 
cannot enter. It seems to us pretty plain, that the scriptural state- 
ments which are usually brought to bear upon the settlement of 
this controversy, and which are founded on by the advocates of 
baptismal regeneration, imply that some connection subsists be- 
tween baptism, in the legitimate use of it, and these fundamental 
blessings : while the view which has been devised by modern Con- 
gregationalists, and is defended by Dr Halley, seems to deny any 
connection whatever between them. The texts referred to seem to 
imply either, that baptism, in the right and legitimate use of it, is 
a sign or symbol, a seal and a profession of remission and regenera- 
tion, as previously conferred and then existing in the party baptized; 
or else that regeneration is produced or bestowed in baptism, and 
through the instrumentality of that ordinance. The first of these 
views is, we are persuaded, that which is sanctioned by Scripture, 
and certainly it has been generally taught by the Reformed 
churches. The latter is the common Popish and Tractarian doc- 
trine; and though it has no solid scriptural ground to rest upon, 
it can be defended from Scripture with some plausibility, and this 
is more, we think, than can be said, so far as concerns this branch 
of the argument, in favour of the notion that baptism may be 
rightly and honestly applied for and received by men who have 
not already and previously received faith in Jesus Christ, the for- 
giveness of their sins, and the regeneration of their natures. We 
would only say, before leaving this subject, that we cannot but 
regard the serious error to which we have adverted, as affording 
another illustration of a danger formerly mentioned, that, namely, 
of allowing the notions or impressions which the special exceptional 
case of infant baptism is apt to suggest, to influence unduly our 



272 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

views about baptism in general, and even about the sacraments 
as a whole. The giving undue prominence to the special case of 
infant baptism, is very apt to blind men's eyes to the strength of 
the evidence, that baptism in its general import and object — that is, 
adult baptism in its legitimate use — implies a profession of faith in 
Christ, and can therefore be rightly received and improved only 
by believers ; while at the same time the temptation to reject this 
great scriptural principle, which is so explicitly set forth in almost 
all the confessions of the Reformed churches, is strengthened by 
the opening thus made, for giving baptism to the children of those 
who do not make a profession of faith, and who would not, or 
should not, have been admitted to the Lord's Supper. 

2. We must now proceed to advert to the second leading divi- 
sion of the subject, viz. the objects of the sacraments, or the pur- 
poses for which they were instituted, and which they are fitted and 
intended to serve, — or, what is virtually the same thing, the bene- 
ficial effects which men are warranted to expect, and do receive, 
from the right use of them. There is, as we have mentioned, a 
very close connection between this topic and that which we have 
already considered. If the sacraments were intended for believers, 
— if their proper subjects are those only who have already been 
united to Christ, and been born again of His word, — then it follows 
that they could not have been fitted or intended to be auxiliary or 
instrumental in bestowing or producing anything which is implied 
in the existence of saving faith, or in effecting anything which is 
involved in, or results from, saving faith, wherever it exists. Upon 
the ground, then, of what has been already set forth under the 
former head, it follows, not only that justification and regeneration 
are not bestowed or produced in or by baptism, but that they 
must have been already bestowed and produced before baptism 
can be lawfully or safely received. This is a principle of funda- 
mental importance, and it is confirmed by all that is taught us 
in Scripture, both with respect to the subjects and the objects of 
the sacraments. There is, indeed, no principle more important 
with reference to this whole matter, whether viewed theoretically 
or practically, whether regarded as an exposition of truth, or as a 
security against corruption and abuse, than that the sacraments are 
intended for believers, and of course must have been fitted to aid 
them in some way or other in the great work of carrying on the 
life of God in their souls, in promoting their growth in knowledge, 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 273 

righteousness, and holiness. The sacraments are means of grace, 
^-that is, they are ordinances or appointments of God, which are 
intended to be in some way auxiliary or instrumental in convey- 
ing to men spiritual blessings. The blessings conveyed by the 
sacraments, and to be expected from the right use of them, cannot 
of course be those which, according to God's arrangements, are 
conveyed to men, and must exist in and be possessed by them, 
before the sacraments can be lawfully and honestly received. It 
is a fundamental principle of scriptural doctrine, that justification 
and regeneration are necessarily and invariably connected with 
faith, and that they are contemporaneous with it, whatever may be 
the precise relation subsisting among them in the order of nature. 
Whoever has been enabled to believe in Jesus Christ has been 
justified and regenerated; he has passed through that great ordeal 
on which salvation depends, and which can occur but once in the 
history of a soul. And if these principles are well founded, then 
the spiritual blessings which the sacraments may be instrumental 
in conveying, can be those only which men still stand in need of, 
with a view to their salvation, after they have been justified and 
regenerated by faith. And these are the forgiveness of the. sins 
which they continue to commit, a growing sense of God's par- 
doning mercy, and grace and strength to resist temptation, to 
discharge duty, to improve privilege, and to be ever advancing 
in holiness ; — or, to adopt the language of the Shorter Cate- 
chism in describing the blessings which accompany or flow from 
justification, adoption, and sanctification, they are " assurance of 
God's love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, increase 
of grace, and perseverance therein to the end." There is nothing 
asserted or indicated in Scripture to preclude the conveyance of 
any or all of these blessings, through the instrumentality of the 
sacraments, as well as of the other means of grace. On the 
contrary, there is good scriptural ground why believers should 
expect to receive, in the right use of the sacraments, any or all of 
these blessings, according as they may need them. And accord- 
ingly, it is the general doctrine of the Eeformed confessions, that 
the great leading object of the sacraments — the main purpose 
which they were designed and fitted to accomplish — is just to be 
instrumental or auxiliary in conveying these blessings to those 
who have believed through grace, in producing these results in 
those who have already been renewed in the spirit of their minds, 

YOL. I. 18 



274 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

and to do this mainly, if not solely, by strengthening and confirm- 
ing their faith. 

We have already had occasion to quote the principal passages 
in which this doctrine concerning the great leading object or 
design of the sacraments is set forth in the Westminster symbols, 
but it may be proper to advert to them somewhat more formally 
in this connection. In the Confession of Faith,* the main position 
laid down regarding the sacraments is this, that they " are holy 
signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted 
by God, to represent Christ and His benefits, and to confirm our 
interest in Him ; as also," etc. Here the general nature and 
character of the sacraments is declared to be, that they are holy 
signs and seals of the covenant of grace; and the principal object 
— the leading design, on account of which they were instituted 
by God — is said to be " to represent Christ and His benefits, and 
to confirm our interest in Him." The " representing Christ and 
His benefits" applies more properly to the sacraments in their 
character and functions as signs ; " the confirming our interest in 
Him," in their character and function as seals. The representing 
or signifying Christ and His benefits, — that is, the blessings of 
the covenant of grace, and the doctrines or promises which unfold 
and offer, and which, when believed and applied, instrumentally 
convey or bestow them, — applies more immediately to the mere 
symbols or elements, and to the preaching of the gospel to all, 
without distinction or exception, which is involved in the selection 
and appointment of such symbols, as recorded in the New Testa- 
ment. The " confirming our interest in Him " brings under our 
notice the more limited and specific object of the sacraments, as 
brought out in the actual individual participation in them by 
persons duly qualified and rightly prepared. This latter state- 
ment suggests at once, as a fundamental point in the doctrine 
of the sacraments, — and, of course, as true of baptism as of the 
Lord's Supper, — that they are intended only for those who have 
already obtained an interest in Christ by faith, and that they are 
designed to benefit these persons mainly by confirming this 
interest in Christ, which they have already acquired, and which 
they must have possessed before they could lawfully and bene- 
ficially partake even in the initiatory sacrament of baptism. This 

* C. 27. 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 275 

important principle is also explicitly declared in the 19th. chapter 
of the Confession, which treats of Saving Faith. Concerning 
saving faith, it says, that " it is ordinarily wrought by the ministry 
of the word, by which also, and by the administration of the 
sacraments and prayer, it is increased and strengthened." Here 
the increasing and strengthening of saving faith, previously pro- 
duced and already existing, is ascribed to the administration of 
the sacraments, and of course is predicated equally and alike 
of baptism and the Lord's Supper ; and this incidental, though 
most explicit, assertion of the principle, that the sacraments were 
designed to increase and strengthen saving faith, shows how 
familiar the minds of the compilers of the Westminster Confession 
were with a doctrine, which is now very much ignored by many 
who profess to follow in their footsteps. 

The same doctrine as to the objects of the sacraments is very 
explicitly set forth in the Larger Catechism, where, in answer 
to the question,* What is a sacrament % it is said, that " a sacra- 
ment is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in His church, to 
signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant 
of grace, the benefits of His mediation, to strengthen and increase 
their faith and all other graces, to oblige them to obedience, to 
testify and cherish their love and communion one with another, 
and to distinguish them from those that are without." We have 
already shown that, according to the strict grammatical construc- 
tion of this sentence, the expression, " those that are within the 
covenant of grace," is used simply as synonymous with believers, 
and not in the wider sense in which it might include also the 
children of believers ; and that, therefore, the Larger Catechism 
agrees with the Confession of Faith and the Shorter Catechism, 
in setting forth this great doctrine in regard to the subjects 
of the sacraments, viz. that they are intended for believers, for 
those who have already received the gift of faith ; not meaning 
to exclude the baptism of infants, — which was regarded as fully 
sanctioned by scriptural authority, — but virtually conceding, 1st, 
That the full and adequate idea of a sacrament, as exhibited 
in adult baptism and the Lord's Supper, does not directly and 
thoroughly apply to the case of infant baptism ; and 2d, That it is 
of more importance to bring out fully and explicitly, the sacra- 

* Q. 162. 



276 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

mental principle, — the true and full doctrine of the sacraments, 
— as applicable to adult baptism and the Lord's Supper, than to 
attempt to lay down some more vague and diluted view upon this 
subject, which might include the special and peculiar case of the 
baptism of infants. This being assumed, we see that the Larger 
Catechism, in entire accordance with the Confession of Faith, 
gives it as the true account of the general nature and character of 
the sacraments, that " they signify, seal, and exhibit " the benefits 
of Christ's mediation to believers, and that their primary leading 
object is to strengthen and increase faith and all other graces, 
where these have been already produced. The three other objects 
here assigned to the sacraments, viz. " to oblige them to obedience, 
to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another, 
and to distinguish them from those that are without," — all, be it 
observed, applicable only to believers, — are usually described by 
theologians, and were no doubt regarded by the Westminster 
divines, as the secondary or subordinate objects or ends of the sacra- 
ments. And it is plain that, in respect of intrinsic importance 
in their bearing upon the salvation of sinners, they do not stand 
upon the same level with the great object and result of strengthen- 
ing and increasing faith and all other graces, and thereby signify- 
ing, sealing, and exhibiting the benefits of the covenant of grace. 

The general definition or description of a sacrament given in 
the Shorter Catechism is very explicit in declaring, that the pro- 
per subjects of the sacraments are believers, though it does not 
bring out so formally and fully what are their objects or ends, 
except in so far as the truth upon this point is implied in their 
general nature and character. But as the statement in the 
Shorter Catechism is that with which most people in Scotland 
are familiar, though in many cases, we fear, familiar only with 
the words, without understanding the meaning, it may be proper 
to give a somewhat full and formal explanation of it, even though 
this may involve some repetition. It is this : " A sacrament is 
an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein by sensible signs 
Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, 
and applied to believers." 

1. This statement explicitly asserts, as we have shown, that 
the sacraments, baptism as well as the Lord's Supper, are in- 
tended for believers, and produce their appropriate beneficial 
results only in those who by faith receive them ; while it assumes 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 277 

or takes for granted, that those who partake in them are duly 
qualified for doing so, by the possession of that faith which, in 
receiving them, is professed or declared. 

2. The things which are represented, sealed, and applied to 
believers in the sacraments are, " Christ and the benefits of the 
new covenant ;" not some of the benefits of the covenant, however 
important and fundamental, but these benefits as a whole, — every- 
thing, including both a change of state and of character, which is 
invariably connected with saving faith ; not the covenant of grace, 
regarded merely as a statement or exposition of a certain compact 
or transaction revealed in Scripture and bearing upon the salva- 
tion of sinners, but the grace of the covenant, or the blessings 
which the covenant offers, conveys, and secures. Any attempt 
to represent baptism, or the water the application of which con- 
stitutes baptism, as representing or signifying remission, — apart 
from regeneration, or regeneration apart from remission, — and 
any attempt to explain the difficulty about sealing by distinguish- 
ing between the covenant of grace and the grace of the covenant, 
and alleging that sacraments are seals of the covenant, but are 
only signs or symbols of spiritual blessings, — is precluded by the 
terms of this statement, and still more explicitly by the further 
explanation given in the Confession of Faith and Larger Cate- 
chism. 

3. " Christ and the benefits of the new covenant" are here 
declared to be equally and alike " represented, sealed, and applied ;" 
and this one complex position being predicated of them, it cannot, 
in consistency with this statement, be alleged that these benefits, 
or any of them, are either represented and not sealed, or sealed 
and not represented, in reference to any one class or section of 
legitimate and worthy recipients. The admission of the accuracy 
of this description of a sacrament implies, that there is a sense in 
which Christ and His benefits are, in baptism and the Lord's 
Supper, not only represented and signified, but also sealed and 
applied to believers. 

4. The "signify, seal, and exhibit" of the Larger Catechism 
are evidently identical with the " represented, sealed, and applied" 
of the Shorter, — " signify" being synonymous with " represent," 
and "exhibit" with "apply." And in considering these expres- 
sions, we have first to advert to the question of the consistency of 
this account of the nature and character of the sacraments, with 



278 ZW1NGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

the view which, as we have seen, is given in these symbols, of their 
main object, their principal design. There is no difficulty in per- 
ceiving how the signifying and sealing here ascribed to the sacra- 
ments accord with the doctrine which represents their leading 
object to be, to confirm or strengthen a faith previously existing, 
and thereby to contribute to convey the blessings which believers 
still need. Signifying and sealing naturally suggest the idea, that 
the things signified and sealed not only exist, but are actually 
possessed by those to whom they are signified and sealed. What- 
ever may be the precise kind of influence and effect indicated by 
these words, they assume or imply, that the things of which they 
are predicated have been already bestowed or conveyed, and are 
now held or possessed. The sacraments are for believers. In 
describing their general nature and character, it is usually assumed 
that the persons who receive them are duly qualified by the pos- 
session of faith ; by receiving the sacraments, they express and 
exercise their faith ; they thus have all the great fundamental 
blessings, the possession of which is invariably connected with the 
existence of faith, signified and sealed to them ; and the tendency 
and effect of this are to strengthen and increase their faith, and 
thereby to convey to them more fully and abundantly those other 
blessings of which they still stand in need. 

But while the signifying and sealing ascribed to the sacraments 
are plainly, whatever may be their precise meaning and import, 
quite accordant with the general doctrine taught concerning their 
objects, there seems to be more difficulty about " exhibiting" or 
" applying." Do not these words convey the idea of conferring 
or bestowing what was not previously possessed ? Do they not 
thus sanction the notion that Christ and His benefits are conveyed 
or bestowed, not previously to the lawful reception of the sacra- 
ments, but in and by the use of them ? Now, in opposition to 
this notion, we take the position, that the doctrine that the sacra- 
ments are for believers, and assume the previous existence in 
worthy recipients of the great spiritual blessings with which saving 
faith is invariably connected, is far too explicitly and too fully set 
forth in the Westminster symbols, in accordance with the general 
doctrine of the Reformed churches, to admit of its being set aside 
or involved in uncertainty, on the ground of a single vague and 
ambiguous expression, even though there were greater difficulty 
than there is, in interpreting that expression in harmony with the 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 279 

general strain of their teaching. The proof of this in the state- 
ments of the Confession and Catechisms is too clear to require 
the application of any collateral and subordinate evidence. But 
it so happens that we have evidence of this sort, which would 
be conclusive as to what was the doctrine which the Westminster 
divines intended to teach upon this point, even though the lan- 
guage of their symbols, taken as a whole, had been much more 
ambiguous than it is. This evidence we find in statements con- 
tained in Samuel Rutherford's " Due Right of Presbyteries," and 
in George Gillespie's " Aaron's Rod Blossoming." Rutherford 
and Gillespie are, literally and without any exception, just the 
two very highest authorities that could be brought to bear upon 
a question of this kind, at once from their learning and ability as 
theologians, and from the place they held and the influence they 
exerted in the actual preparation of the documents under con- 
sideration. That Rutherford held the views about the sacraments 
which we have ascribed to the Westminster standards, is quite 
certain, from the following quotations from the work above 
referred to : — 

" All believers as believers, inforo Dei before God, have right to the seals 
of the covenant ; those to whom the covenant and the body of the charter 
belongeth, to those the seal belongeth ; but in foro ecclesiastic o, and in an 
orderly church way, the seals are not to be conferred by the church upon 
persons because they believe, but because they profess their believing ; there- 
fore the apostles never baptized Pagans, but upon profession of their faith." 
" Certainly, God ordaineth the sacraments to believers as believers, and be- 
cause they are within the covenant, and their interest in the covenant is the 
only true right of interest to the seals of the covenant ; profession doth but 
declare who believe and who believe not, and consequently who have right to 
the seals of the covenant, and who not ; but profession doth not make right, 
but declareth who have right."* 

There is no great difficulty connected with the Lord's Supper, 
so far as concerns the point now under consideration. The 
difficulty applies only to baptism, and in regard to baptism the 
following statements of Rutherford are conclusive : — 

"1. Baptism is not that whereby we are entered into Christ's mystical and 
invisible body as such, for it is presupposed we be members of Christ's body, 
and our sins pardoned already before baptism come to be a seal of sins par- 
doned. But baptism is a seal of our entry into Christ's visible body, as swear- 
ing to the colours is that which entereth a soldier to be a member of such an 



* Pp. 185 and 258. 



280 



ZWINGLE AND THE 



[Essay V. 



army, whereas, before his oath, he was only a heart-friend to the army and 
cause. 

" 2. Baptism, as it is such, is a seal, and a seal — as a seal — addeth no new 
lands or goods to the man to whom the charter and seal is given, but only doth 
legally confirm him in the right of such lands given to the man by prince or 
state. Yet this hindereth not ; but baptism is a real legal seal, legally con- 
firming the man in his actual visible profession of Christ, remission of sins, 
regeneration, so, as though before baptism he was a member of Christ's body, 
yet, quoad nos, he is not a member of Christ's body visible, until he be made 
such by baptism."* 

Gillespie, in like manner, has the following explicit statement 
upon this subject : — 

" The Papists hold that the sacraments are instrumental to confer, give, or 
work grace ; yea, ex opere operato, as the schoolmen speak. Our divines hold 
that the sacraments are appointed of God, and delivered to the church as 
sealing ordinances, not to give, but to testify what is given ; not to make, 
but to confirm saints. And they not only oppose the Papist's opus operatum, 
but they simply deny this instrumentality of the sacraments, that they are 
appointed of God for working or giving grace where it is not. This is so well 
known to all who have studied the sacramentarian controversies, that I should 
not need to prove it ; yet that none may doubt of it, take here some few 
instead of many testimonies. "f 

Nay, what is somewhat remarkable, and singularly pertinent to 
our present purpose, we find that the- same difficulty which we are 
now considering is stated and answered by Gillespie, and that his 
answer to it is virtually a commentary upon the passage we are 
examining, and establishes the sense in which it was understood 
by those who may be regarded as its authors, — thus not only 



*P. 211. 

f B. iii. c. 12, p. 409. Gillespie's 
quotations in proof of his position are 
from the old Scotch Confession, the 
Synod of Dort, and the Belgic Liturgy, 
Calvin, Bullinger, Ursinus, Muscu- 
lus, Bucer, Festus Hommius, Aretius, 
Vossius, Parseus, Walseus, etc. We 
give one of his quotations from Ur- 
sinus, who was the principal author 
of the Heidelberg or Palatine Cate- 
chism, because it is a very brief, terse, 
and comprehensive statement of the 
substance of the doctrine of the Re- 
formed churches, in regard both to 
the subjects and objects of the sacra- 
ments, as contradistinguished from 



the word or the truth ; and because we 
wish to mention that there is no divine 
of the sixteenth century, who has 
brought out more clearly and fully the 
great principle, that the leading object 
of the sacraments is the confirmatio 
fidei. " Quasi non pueris jam notum 
verbum et conversis et non conversis 
esse annunciandum, quo illi quidem 
confirm entur, hi vero convertantur ; 
sacramenta autem iis esse instituta 
qui jam sunt conversi et membra 
populi dei facti." Judicium de dis- 
ciplina ecclesiastica. Oper. torn. iii. 
p. 809, and not p. 89, as it is printed 
in Gillespie. 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 281 

proving that the doctrine we have asserted is to be maintained, 
notwithstanding its apparent discrepancy, with one expression, but 
at the same time showing in what way this apparent discrepancy 
is to be explained. The remarkable passage is as follows : — " You 
will say, peradventure, that Protestant writers hold the sacra- 
ments to be, 1, Significant or declarative signs ; 2, Obsignative 
or confirming signs ; and 3, Exhibitive signs, so that the thing 
signified is given or exhibited to the soul." Now these three 
points are manifestly identical with the three words employed 
in the Catechisms, — " signify, seal, and exhibit," in the Larger; 
and "represent, seal, and apply," in the Shorter. The main 
question is, What is meant by the third point, exhibit and apply, 
or exhibitive signs? and Gillespie's answer is this : — 

" I answer, that exhibition, which they speak of, is not the giving of grace 
where it is not (as is manifest by the afore-quoted testimonies), but an exhibi- 
tion to believers, a real, effectual, lively application of Christ, and of all His 
benefits, to every one that believeth, for the staying, strengthening, confirming, and 
comforting of the soul. Our divines do not say that the sacraments are exhibi- 
tive ordinances, wherein grace is communicated to those who have none of it, 
to unconverted or unbelieving persons. 

" By this time it may appear (I suppose) that the controversy between us 
and the Papists, concerning the effect of the sacraments (setting aside the 
opus operatum, which is a distinct controversy, and is distinctly spoken to by 
our writers, — setting aside also the causalitas physica and insita, by which some 
of the Papists say the sacraments give grace, though divers others of them hold 
the sacraments to be only moral causes of grace), is thus far the same with 
the present controversy between Mr Prynne and me, that Protestant writers 
do not only oppose the opus operatum and the causalitas physica and insita, 
but they oppose (as is manifest by the testimonies already cited) all causality 
or working of the first grace of conversion and faith in or by the sacraments, 
supposing always a man to be a believer and within the covenant of grace 
before the sacrament, and that he is not made such, nor translated to the 
state of grace in or by the sacrament."* 

We think it of some importance to show, that these view's of 
the sacramental principle, or of the doctrine of the sacraments, 
which, though so clearly and fully set forth in the Westminster 
standards, have been so much lost sight of amongst us, were 
openly maintained by the leading divines of the Church of Scot- 
land during last century. Principal Hadow and Thomas Boston 
may be regarded as the heads of two different schools of theology 



* Pp. 496-7. 



282 



ZWINGLE AND THE 



[Essay V. 



in Scotland in the early part of last century, and; as happens not 
unfrequently in theological discussions, they divided, we think, 
the truth between them in the points controverted. They have 
both left very explicit statements of their views upon this subject 
of the sacraments, especially in regard to baptism, about which 
alone there is any difficulty, so far as concerns the points we have 
been considering. Principal Hadow lays down this position, that 
the commonly received doctrine of the Reformed churches does 
not " ascribe any other virtue or efficacy to baptism, than what is 
moral and objective, in representing and signing the promises, 
confirming of faith, and exhibiting or applying the promised 
benefits of the covenant unto believers, by way of a sign and seal, 
which still supposeth grace already conferred on those in whom 
this sacrament hath its due operation;" and he supports this and 
one or two other positions of a similar import and tendency by 
quotations from Zwingle, Bullinger, Peter Martyr, Musculus, 
Polanus, Wollebius, Aretius, Calvin, Beza, Spanheim, Turretine, 
Heidegger, Bucer, Zanchius, Ursinus, Parseus, Wendelinus, Rivet, 
Walseus, Hoornbeck, Essenius, Leydecker, Mastricht, Witsius, 
Alting, Maresius, Gomarus, Maccovius, Ames, Arnoldus, Danaeus, 
Chamier, Amyraut, Du Moulin, — thus furnishing, like Vitringa, a 
great storehouse of materials for a theological display.* 

Boston's views are brought out in the following extract from 
his "Miscellany Questions in Divinity:"! — 

" The sacraments are not converting but confirming ordinances ; they are 
appointed for the use and benefit of God's children, not of others ; they are 
given to believers as believers, as Rutherford expresses it, so that none other 
are subjects capable of the same before the Lord. Either must we say they 
have no respect at all to saving grace, or that they are appointed as means of 
the conveyance of the first grace, — that is, to convert sinners, — or finally, for 
confirmation of grace already received. If it be said they have no respect at 
all to saving grace, then baptism cannot be called the baptism of repentance, 
nor are persons baptized for the remission of sins, nor can it be looked on as 
a seal of the righteousness of faith, all which is evidently against Scripture 
testimony. If it be said they are appointed as means of the conveyance of the 
first grace, then, first, either there are none converted before baptism, which 
is manifestly false, or else baptism is in vain conferred on converts, which is 
no less false. But surely in vain are means used to confer on any that which 



* The Doctrine and Practice of the 
Church of Scotland anent the Sacra- 



ment of Baptism, p. 23. Published 
anonymously in 1704. 

f Q. vi. Works in folio, p. 384. 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 283 

they had before. Second, it were unfaithfulness to Christ and cruelty to men 
to withhold the sacraments from any person whatsoever. Were it not soul- 
murder to withhold the means of conveyance of the first grace from any, and 
unfaithfulness to Him who will have all men to be saved and come to the know- 
ledge of the truth ? But that the sacraments, and particularly baptism, are 
not to be conferred on all promiscuously, none can deny. Wherefore it re- 
mains that they are indeed appointed for confirmation, which doth necessarily 
suppose the pre-existence of grace in the soul, seeing that which is not cannot 
be confirmed." 

These quotations confirm everything we have said as to the 
doctrine which has been regarded by the most competent judges 
as taught in the Westminster standards. We give only one other 
short quotation from Dr John Erskine, probably the greatest 
divine in the Church of Scotland in the latter part of last century: — 

" Scripture sufficiently proves that the sacraments of the New Testament 
are signs and seals of no other covenant than that covenant of grace which 
secures eternal happiness to all interested in it. And the partaking of them 
manifestly implies a partaking of covenant blessings on the one hand, and the 
exercise of faith on the other. To begin with baptism : John baptized for the 
remission of sins, and so did Christ's disciples. We are told that baptism saves 
us ; and by baptism we are said to put on Christ, to die, to be buried, and to 
rise with Him, because the water in baptism represents and seals that blood of 
Jesus which cleanseth from the guilt of sin, and purchases for us the sancti- 
fying influences of the Spirit, and all other needful blessings. Baptism, then, 
is a seal of spiritual blessings ; and spiritual blessings it cannot seal to the 
unconverted."* 

We have now explained the doctrine taught in the Westminster 
standards concerning the subjects and the objects of the two 
sacraments of the Christian church, — that is, the persons who can 
lawfully and beneficially partake in them, and the purposes which, 
in these persons, they are fitted and intended to accomplish. 
Another question still remains to be considered, viz. Have we any 
further information as to the way and manner in which the 
sacraments produce their appropriate effects, or as to the principles 
which regulate the production of the results 1 So much mischief 
has been done to the souls of men by the perversion or abuse of 
the sacraments, that we consider it necessary, in connection with 
this branch of the subject, to state again distinctly what is, of 
course, obviously implied in the views we have explained, viz. 
that men who outwardly partake in the sacraments without having 



Theological Dissertations, Diss. ii. p. 94. 



284 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

been previously led to believe in Christ Jesus, ean derive from 
them no benefit whatever. Persons who are still unbelieving and 
impenitent, do not, in receiving baptism or the Lord's Supper, 
discharge a duty, or perform an acceptable act of worship, or 
enjoy and improve a privilege or mean of- grace. On the contrary, 
they are only committing a sin, because they are presumptuously 
engaging in a sacred service, while destitute of the qualifications 
which God has required, and because, in the very act of outwardly 
receiving the sacraments, they are making a false and hypocritical 
profession ; they are declaring by deeds the existence of a certain 
state of mind and heart, corresponding to the outward act they 
are performing, while it has really no existence. The sacraments 
can be expected to become the means of grace, or the channels of 
conveying spiritual blessings, only when men riglitly receive them, 
— that is, when they are duly prepared for the reception of them, 
and when they faithfully improve them for their intended objects. 
With respect to the due preparation, there are required what the 
old divines used to call an habitual and an actual, or a general 
and a special, preparation. The habitual or general preparation 
is, of course, faith, without which already existing there can be no 
warrant for participating in the sacraments, and no capacity of 
benefiting by them; and the actual or special preparation is just 
faith in exercise, under the influence of right views and suitable 
impressions of our own wants and necessities at the time, and of 
the nature, character, and objects of the ordinance, whether it be 
baptism or the Lord's Supper, in which we are about to engage. 
It is only in these circumstances that the sacraments can be 
expected to prove means of grace. 

The question thus becomes limited to this, In what way, or 
through what process, do the sacraments become instrumental in 
conveying spiritual blessings to those persons who, having pre- 
viously believed in Christ, and been justified and regenerated, 
receive these ordinances under a due sense of regard to Christ's 
authority, and from a sincere desire to share more abundantly in 
the blessings of which they still stand in need, and which are all 
treasured up in Him? Now as to the way and manner, the 
process and regulating principles, according to which these men 
derive benefit from receiving the sacraments, the word of God 
has certainly not given us much direct information. And this, 
indeed, is just a part or a consequence of a more general truth, 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 285 

viz. that Scripture does not ascribe to the sacraments any such 
prominence or influence in the way of contributing to men's 
salvation, by conveying to them spiritual blessings, as the Popish 
or Tractarian theory does. There are, indeed, some important 
negative truths bearing upon this subject, which are clear and 
certain, and which it is important to remember and to apply, as 
the great securities against error and abuse. Most of these have 
been referred to already, but it may be proper now to state them 
together, and in this connection. They are chiefly these — 

1. That the sacraments do not occupy any such place in the 
scheme of God's arrangements, as to make the participation in 
them, or in either of them, necessary to the possession and 
enjoyment of any spiritual blessing, or to entire meetness for 
heaven. 

2. That no spiritual blessings are derived from the sacra- 
ments, without the previous existence and the present exercise of 
true saving faith. 

3. That the sacraments become effectual means of grace and 
salvation, not from any virtue — that is, any power or worth, 
personal or official — in him who administers them, nor from 
any virtue in them, — that is, from any intrinsic efficacy in- 
herent in them, and resulting ex opere operate, — and that they 
do not operate certainly and invariably in conveying any spiritual 
blessings. 

4. That the sacraments are not seals of spiritual blessings in 
any such sense as implies that they are attestations to the per- 
sonal character or spiritual condition of those who receive them, 
or that the mere reception of the sacraments is to be held as of 
itself furnishing a proof, or even a presumption, that those re- 
ceiving them are true believers, and may be assured that they 
have reached a condition of safety. 

These truths, it will be observed, are to a large extent nega- 
tive. They consist mainly of denials of certain notions about 
the nature and necessity, the subjects, objects, and effects of the 
sacraments, which are very apt to spring up in men's minds, and 
which have been openly maintained by Romanists and High 
Churchmen. And when we reflect upon the extent to which 
these unwarranted and extravagant notions about the sacraments 
have prevailed, and upon the fearful amount of injury they 
have done to the souls of men, we reckon it about sufficient to 



286 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

know, that in the case of adults they are not intended for those 
who have not already faith and regeneration ; that they do not 
produce any beneficial results which may not be comprehended 
under the general head of aiding and assisting believers in carry- 
ing on the work of sanctification in their hearts ; and that they 
do not directly and of themselves furnish any evidence, that faith 
and regeneration have been produced, and that the work of grace 
has begun. Let men firmly believe and carefully apply these 
negative doctrines, and they will thus be preserved from error 
and delusion, and at the same time will be able, if they care- 
fully improve what they know, and wait upon God for His 
blessing, to derive from the sacraments all the spiritual bene- 
fits they were ever fitted and intended to be the means of 
conveying. 

There is really nothing more declared or defined upon this 
point in Scripture, or in the Westminster symbols, except what 
may be implied in or deducible from their general character as 
signs and seals of the covenant of grace. The general idea 
suggested by the word seal is that of confirming ; and there is 
no great difficulty in seeing how this idea may be applied to 
the sacraments, without imagining that they are in themselves 
attestations on God's part to men's individual character and con- 
dition, or that they involve anything very exalted or mysterious. 
There is, first of all, the general consideration, that Christ having 
expressly appointed these two special ordinances to be instruments 
or channels of conveying to men spiritual blessings, in addition to 
what may be called the more ordinary means of grace, the word 
and prayer, we have in this very circumstance special grounds for 
confidently expecting His special blessing when we receive and 
use them aright. This consideration is well fitted to confirm us 
in our determination to improve the sacraments to the uttermost, 
and in our confident expectation of deriving spiritual benefit 
from doing so. 

And when we look more particularly to the character of the 
sacraments as outward actions of a symbolic import, we see plainly 
that they have an individualizing, appropriating bearing or ten- 
dency, which fits them specially for being made the instruments 
in the hand of the Spirit of guiding us to a personal application 
of divine truth to our own condition and circumstances, and thus 
sealing or confirming our faith, love, and hope. A believer, in 



Essay V.] DOCTKINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 287 

partaking of the sacraments, stands forth, plainly and palpably, as 
making a personal profession of his faith in Christ, and giving a 
personal promise and pledge to persevere in faith and obedience. 
The natural tendency of this is to lead him to realize more fully 
his actual position, obligations, and prospects as a believer, and 
this warrants the confident expectation that the Spirit will actually 
employ it for accomplishing this result. But the sacraments are 
to be regarded as signs and seals on the part of God as well as of 
man. And in this aspect their sealing or confirming character 
comes out in this way : God, by giving to a believer, in the ordi- 
nary course of His providence, an opportunity of partaking in the 
sacraments, does not indeed thereby attest or indorse his personal 
character and standing as a believer, but He may be said to single 
him out and to deal with him in his' individual capacity, — address- 
ing to him personally, and in a manner and circumstances pecu- 
liarly fitted to come home with power to his understanding, heart, 
and conscience, the great truths of Scripture, with the knowledge, 
belief, and application of which all spiritual blessings are con- 
nected; and thus intimating His readiness and willingness to 
bestow, in connection with these ordinances, all needful spiritual 
blessings, in accordance with all that He has revealed in His 
word, as regulating His conduct in such matters. Viewed as 
signs and seals on God's part, the sacraments may be fairly re- 
garded as signifying or intimating this ; and the declaration of all 
this in such circumstances, and with such accompaniments, is well 
fitted to exert a sealing or confirming influence upon the minds 
of believers. 

The substance of this matter may be embodied in these two 
positions, — 1st, That the Holy Spirit ordinarily employs the 
sacraments, when received by persons duly qualified and rightly 
prepared, as means or instruments of conveying to them clearer 
views and more lively and impressive conceptions of what He has 
done and revealed in His word ; with respect to the provisions 
and arrangements of the covenant of grace, and their special 
application to men individually. And 2d, That the Holy Spirit, 
acting in accordance with the principles and tendencies 'of our 
constitution, ordinarily employs the sacraments, as means or 
instruments of increasing and strengthening men's faith with 
reference to all its appropriate objects, and thereby of imparting 
to them, in greater abundance, all the spiritual blessings which are 



288 



ZWINGLE AND THE 



[Essay V. 



connected with the lively and vigorous exercise of faith, — that 
is, all those subordinate blessings — as in a certain sense they 
may be called — which accompany and flow from justification and 
regeneration.* 

We have now stated the substance of what is suggested by 
Scripture, and set forth in the Westminster standards, concern- 
ing the way and manner in which the sacraments become means 
of grace, and produce their appropriate beneficial effects; and, 
indeed, more generally, concerning the nature and character, the 
subjects and the objects, the end and the effect, of these ordi- 
nances. And we have done so under the influence of a strong 
desire and determination to avoid the very common and very in- 
jurious tendency, either directly to overrate the value and efficacy 
of the sacraments, or to furnish facilities and encouragements to 
others to overrate them, by leaving our statements on these sub- 
jects in a condition of great vagueness and confusion. Any 
attempts to assign to them greater dignity, value, and efficacy 
than we have ascribed to them, or to invest them with a deeper 
shade of mystery, are, we are persuaded, not only unsanctioned 
by Scripture, but inconsistent with the fair and legitimate conse- 
quences of what it teaches, and are fitted to exert an injurious 
influence upon the interests of truth and holiness. The strong 
natural tendency of men to substitute the tithing of mint, anise, 
and cumin, for the weightier matters of the law, — to substitute the 
observance of outward rites and ceremonies for the diligent culti- 
vation of Christian graces and the faithful discharge of Christian 
duties, — is strengthened by everything which, professedly upon 
religious grounds, either adds to the number of the rites and cere- 
monies which God has prescribed, or assigns even to prescribed 
rites and ceremonies an importance and an efficacy beyond what 
He has sanctioned. In the second of these ways, as well as in 
the first, the truth of God has been grievously perverted, and 
the interests of practical godliness have been extensively injured. 
Almost the only rites and ceremonies permanently binding upon 
the Christian church are baptism and the Lord's Supper ; and these 



* Beza explains sealing in this way: 
— Q. Quid obsignationem appellas? E. 
Applicationem efficaciorem per Jidei 
incrementum, siquidem quo fides major 
est, eo prsestantius est ejus effectual, 



ut Cbristus cum suis donis roagis ac 
magis nobis ipsis velut insculpatur. 
(Quaestionum et Responsionum Ckris- 
tianarum, Pars Altera, quse est de 
Sacramentis, p. 24.) 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 289 

have been in every age so distorted and perverted by exaggeration 
and confusion, as to have proved, in point of fact, the occasions 
of fearful injury to men's souls. It is true that men have some- 
times exhibited a tendency to go to the opposite extreme, to depre- 
ciate instituted ordinances, and to reduce their importance, value, 
and efficacy below the standard which the word of God sanctions. 
But the tendency to overvalue the sacraments, and to make the 
observance of them a substitute, niore or less avowedly, for things 
of much greater importance, is far more common and far more 
dangerous ; more dangerous, at once, because it is more likely to 
creep in, and to gain an ascendency in men's minds, and because, 
when yielded to and encouraged, it exerts a more injurious influence 
upon the highest and holiest interests, by wrapping men in strong 
delusion in regard to their spiritual condition and prospects, and 
leading them to build their hopes of heaven upon a false founda- 
tion. 

We have confined ourselves to an explanation of the sacra- 
mental principle, or the general doctrine or theory of the sacra- 
ments as applicable to both these ordinances — a subject greatly 
neglected and misunderstood. We have referred to baptism and 
the Lord's Supper only in so far as this was necessary for illus- 
trating something connected with the exposition of the general 
doctrine. We have had no occasion to dwell upon the Lord's 
Supper, because the application of the general doctrine of the 
sacraments to it is plain enough, and because there is no serious 
difficulty connected with it, unless we had gone into the discussion 
of the kind and manner of the presence of Christ in this ordinance, 
which we regard as one of the most useless controversies that ever 
was raised. We have been obliged to dwell at some length on bap- 
tism, and especially infant baptism, chiefly because of the peculiar 
place which infant baptism holds, — a peculiarity, the ignorance 
or disregard of which has introduced much error and confusion 
into men's views upon this whole subject, The peculiarity is, 
that infant baptism really occupies a sort of subordinate and ex- 
ceptional position ; while, at the same time, this peculiarity being 
overlooked, and infant baptism coming much more frequently 
under our notice than adult baptism, we are very apt to allow the 
specialties of this peculiar case to modify unduly our views, not 
only of baptism, but even of the sacraments in general. 

The views we have set forth upon this subject may at first sight 

VOL. I. 19 



290 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V. 

appear to be large concessions to the anti-psedobaptists,— those who 
deny the lawfulness of the baptism of infants ; and to affect the 
solidity of the grounds on which the practice of psedobaptism, which 
has ever prevailed almost universally in the Christian church, is 
based. But we are firmly persuaded, that a more careful consi- 
deration of the whole matter will show, that these views — besides 
being clearly sanctioned by Scripture, and absolutely necessary for 
the consistent and intelligible interpretation of the confessions of 
the Reformed churches, and especially of the Westminster sym- 
bols — are, in their legitimate application, fitted to deprive the 
arguments of the anti-psedobaptists of the plausibility they possess. 
It cannot be reasonably denied, that they have a good deal that 
is plausible to allege against infant baptism. But we are satisfied 
that the plausibility of their arguments will always appear greatest 
to men who have not been accustomed to distinguish between the 
primary, fundamental, and complete idea of this ordinance as 
exhibited in the baptism of adults, and the distinct and peculiar 
place which is held by infant baptism, with the special grounds 
on which it rests. We cannot conclude without simply stating 
the following leading positions that ought to be maintained and set 
forth, in order to guard against error and delusion on the subject 
of infant baptism : — 

1st, That Scripture, while furnishing sufficient materials to 
establish the lawfulness and obligation of infant baptism, does not 
give us much direct information concerning it, — does not furnish 
materials for laying down any very definite deliverances as to its 
proper effects in relation to individuals ; and that the whole his- 
tory of the church inculcates the lesson, that upon this subject 
men should be particularly careful to abstain from deductions, 
probabilities, or conjectures, beyond what Scripture clearly sanc- 
tions. 

2d, That while believers are under the same obligation to pre- 
sent their infant children for baptism as to be baptized themselves, 
if they have not been baptized before, no infants ought to be 
baptized, except those of persons who ought themselves to be 
baptized as adults upon their own profession, and who, being thus 
recognised as believers, are not only entitled but bound to be 
habitually receiving the Lord's Supper. 

3cZ, That while believers are warranted to improve the baptism 
of their children in the way of confirming their faith in the salva- 



Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 291 

tion of those of them who die in infancy, and in the way of en- 
couraging themselves in a hearty and hopeful discharge of parental 
duty towards those of them who survive infancy, neither parents 
nor children, when the children come to be proper subjects of 
instruction, should regard the fact that they have been baptized, 
as affording of itself even the slightest presumption that they have 
been regenerated ; that nothing should ever be regarded as fur- 
nishing any evidence of regeneration, except the appropriate proofs 
of an actual renovation of the moral nature, exhibited in each 
case individually : and that, until these proofs appear, every one, 
whether baptized or not, should be treated and dealt with in all 
respects as if he were unregenerate, and still needed to be born 
again of the word of God through the belief of the truth, 



JOHN CALYIN.* 



John Calvin was by far the greatest of the Reformers with 
respect to the talents he possessed, the influence he exerted, and 
the services he rendered in the establishment and diffusion of 
important truth. The Reformers who preceded him may be said 
to have been all men who, from the circumstances in which they 
were placed, and the occupations which these circumstances im- 
posed upon them, or from the powers and capacities with which 
they had been gifted, were fitted chiefly for the immediate neces- 
sary business of the age in which their lot was cast, and were not 
perhaps qualified for rising above this sphere, — which, however, 
was a very important one. Their efforts, whether in the way of 
speculation or of action, were just such as their immediate cir- 
cumstances and urgent present duties demanded of them, while 
they had little opportunity of considering and promoting the per- 
manent interests of the whole scheme of scriptural truth, or the 
whole theory and constitution of Christian churches. After all 
that Luther, Melancthon, and Zwingle had done, there was 
still needed some one of elevated and comprehensive mind, who 
should be able to rise above the distraction and confusion of exist- 
ing contentions, to survey the wide field of scriptural truth in all 
its departments, to combine and arrange its various parts, and to 
present them as a harmonious whole to the contemplation of men. 



* British and Foreign Evangelical 
Review. 

The Works of Calvin in English, 



by the Calvin Translation Society. 
52 vols. 8vo. 1843-1856. 

Letters of John Calvin. By Dr 
Jules Bonnet. 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 293 

This was the special work for which God qualified Calvin, by 
bestowing upon him both the intellectual and the spiritual gifts 
necessary for the task ; and this He enabled him to accomplish. 
God makes use of the intellectual powers which He bestows upon 
men, for the accomplishment of His own purposes ; or rather He 
bestows upon men those intellectual powers which may fit them 
naturally, and according to the ordinary operation of means, for 
the purposes which He in His sovereignty has assigned to them to 
effect. He then leads them by His grace to devote their powers 
to His glory and service, He blesses their labours, and thus His 
gracious designs are accomplished. 

Calvin had received from God mental powers of the highest 
order. Distinguished equally by comprehensiveness and pene- 
tration of intellect, by acuteness and soundness of judgment, his 
circumstances in early life were so regulated in providence that 
he was furnished with the best opportunities of improving his 
faculties, and acquiring the learning and culture that might be 
necessary with a view to his future labours. Led by God's grace 
early and decidedly to renounce the devil, the world, and the 
flesh, and to devote himself to the service of Christ, he was also 
led, under the same guidance, to abandon the Church of Rome, 
and to devote himself to the preaching of the gospel, the exposi- 
tion of the revealed truth of God, and the organization of churches 
in accordance with the sacred Scriptures and the practice of the 
apostles. In all these departments of useful labour his efforts were 
honoured with an extraordinary measure of success. Calvin did 
what the rest of the Reformers did, and in addition he did what 
none of them either did or could effect. He was a diligent and 
laborious pastor. He gave much time to the instruction of those 
who were preparing for the work of the ministry. He took an 
active part in opposing the Church of Rome, in promoting the 
Reformation, and in organizing Protestant churches. Entering 
with zeal and ardour into all the controversies which the eccle- 
siastical movements of the time produced, he was ever ready to 
defend injured truth or to expose triumphant error. This was 
work which he had to do in common with the other Reformers, 
though he brought higher powers than any of them to bear upon 
the performance of it. But in addition to all this, he had for his 
special business the great work of digesting and systematizing the 
whole scheme of divine truth, of bringing out in order and har- 



294 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

niony all the different doctrines which are contained in the word 
of God, unfolding them in their mutual relations and various 
bearings, and thus presenting them, in the most favourable aspect, 
to the contemplation and the study of the highest order of minds. 

The systematizing of divine truth, and the full organization of 
the Christian church according to the word of God, are the great 
peculiar achievements of Calvin. For this work God eminently 
qualified him, by bestowing 'upon him the highest gifts both of 
nature and of grace ; and this work he was enabled to accomplish 
in such a way as to confer the greatest and most lasting benefits 
upon the church of Christ, and to entitle him to the commenda- 
tion and the gratitude of all succeeding ages. 

The first edition of his great work, " The Institution of the 
Christian Religion," was published when he was twenty-seven 
years of age ; and it is a most extraordinary proof of the maturity 
and vigour of his mind, of the care with which he had studied the 
word of God, and of the depth and comprehensiveness of his 
meditations upon divine things, that though the work was after- 
wards greatly enlarged, and though some alterations were even 
made in the arrangement of the topics discussed, yet no change 
of any importance was made in the actual doctrines which it set 
forth. The first edition, produced at that early age, contained 
the substance of the whole system of doctrine which has since 
been commonly associated with his name, — the development and 
exposition of which has been regarded by many as constituting a 
strong claim upon the esteem and gratitude of the church of 
Christ, and by many others as rendering him worthy of execration 
and every opprobrium. He lived twenty-seven years more after 
the publication of the first edition of the Institutes, and a large 
portion of his time during the remainder of his life w^as devoted 
to the examination of the word of God and the investigation of 
divine truth. But he saw no reason to make any material change 
in the views which he had put forth ; and a large proportion of 
the most pious, able, and learned men, and most careful students 
of the sacred Scriptures, who have since adorned the church of 
Christ, have received all his leading doctrines as accordant with 
the teaching of God's word.* 



* In a work published a short time I following statement upon this point, — 
before Calvin's death, Beza made the | a statement fully confirmed by all the 



Essay VI.] 



JOHN CALVIN. 



295 



The " Institutio" of Calvin is the most important work in the 
history of theological science, that which is more than any other 
creditable to its author, and has exerted directly or indirectly the 
greatest and most beneficial influence upon the opinions of intelli- 
gent men on theological subjects. It may be said to occupy in the 
science of theology, the place which it requires both the " Novum 
Organ um" of Bacon and the "Principia" of Newton to fill up in 
physical science, — at once conveying, though not in formal didactic 
precepts and rules, the finest idea of the way and manner in which 
the truths of God's word ought to be classified and systematized, 
and at the same time actually classifying and systematizing them, 
in a way that has not yet received any very material or essential 
improvement. There had been previous attempts to present the 
truths of Scripture in a systematic form and arrangement, and to 
exhibit their relations and mutual dependence. But all former 
attempts had been characterized by great defects and imperfec- 
tions ; and especially all of them had been more or less defective 
in this most important respect, that a considerable portion of the 
materials of which they were composed had been not truths but 
errors, — not the doctrines actually taught in the sacred Scriptures, 
but errors arising from ignorance of the contents of the inspired 
volume, or from serious mistakes as to the meaning of its state- 
ments. One of the earlier attempts at a formal system of theology 
was made in the eighth century, by Johannes Damascenus, and 
this is a very defective and erroneous work. The others which 
had preceded Calvin's " Institutes " in this department, were 
chiefly the productions of the schoolmen, Lombard's four books 
of "Sentences," and Thomas Acminas's " Summa," with the com- 
mentaries upon these works; and they all exhibited very defective 
and erroneous views of scriptural truth. Augustine was the last 
man who had possessed sufficient intellectual power, combined with 
views in the main correct of the leading doctrines of God's word, 
to have produced a system of theology that might have been 
generally received, and he was not led to undertake such a work, 
except in a very partial way. The first edition of Melancthon's 



facts of the case : " Hoc enim (Deo sit 
gratia) vel ipsa insidia Calvino tribuat 
necesse est, ut quamvis sit ipse ex 
eorum nmnero qui quotidie discendo 
consenescunt, nullum tamen dogma 
jam inde ab initio ad hoc usque tern- 



pus, in tarn multis et tam laboriosis 
scriptis, ecclesise proposuerit, in quo 
ilium sententiam mutare et a semet- 
ipso dissentire oportuerit." — Abstersio 
Calumniarum, p. 263. 



296 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

Commonplaces — the only one published before Calvin produced 
the first edition of his "Institutes" — was not to be compared to 
Calvin's work, in the accuracy of its representations of the doc- 
trines of Scripture, in the fulness and completeness of its mate- 
rials, or in the skill and ability with which they w^re digested and 
arranged ; and in the subsequent editions, while the inaccuracy of 
its statements increased in some respects rather than diminished, 
it still continued, to a considerable extent, a defective and ill- 
digested work, characterized by a good deal of prolixity and 
wearisome repetition. It was in these circumstances that Calvin 
produced his " Institutes," the materials of which it was composed 
being in almost every instance the true doctrines really taught in 
the word of God, and exhibiting the whole substance of what is 
taught there on matters of doctrine, worship, government, and 
discipline, — and the whole of these materials being arranged with 
admirable skill, and expounded in their meaning, evidence, and 
bearings, with consummate ability. This was the great and 
peculiar service which Calvin rendered to the cause of truth and 
the interests of sound theology, and its value and importance it is 
scarcely possible to overrate. 

In theology there is, of course, no room for originality properly 
so called, for its whole materials are contained in the actual state- 
ments of God's word ; and he is the greatest and best theologian 
who has most accurately apprehended the meaning of the state- 
ments of Scripture, — who, by comparing and combining them, has 
most fully and correctly brought out the whole mind of God on 
all the topics on which the Scriptures give us information, — who 
classifies and digests the truths of Scripture in the way best fitted 
to commend them to the apprehension and acceptance of men, — 
and who can most clearly and forcibly bring out their scriptural 
evidence, and most skilfully and effectively defend them against 
the assaults of adversaries. In this work, and indeed in almost 
any one of its departments, there is abundant scope for the exer- 
cise of the highest powers, and for the application of the most 
varied and extensive acquirements. Calvin was far above the 
weakness of aiming at the invention of novelties in theology, or 
of wishing to be regarded as the discoverer of new opinions. The 
main features of the representation which he put forth of the 
scheme of divine truth, might be found in the writings of Augus- 
tine and Luther, — in neither singly, but in the two conjointly. 






Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 297 

But by grasping with vigour and comprehensiveness the whole 
scheme of divine truth and all its various departments, and com- 
bining them into one harmonious and well-digested system, he has 
done what neither Augustine nor Luther did or could have clone, 
and has given conclusive evidence that he was possessed of the 
highest intellectual powers, as well as enjoyed the most abundant 
communications of God's Spirit. 

The two leading departments of theological science are the 
exegetical and the systematic. The two most important functions 
of the theologian are — first, to bring out accurately the meaning 
of the individual statements of God's word, the particular truths 
which are taught there ; and second, to classify and arrange these 
truths in such a way as to bring out most fully and correctly the 
whole scheme of doctrine wdiich is there unfolded, and to illustrate 
the bearing and application of the scheme as a whole, and of its 
different parts. And it is important to notice, that in both these 
departments Calvin stands out pre-eminent, having manifested in 
both of them the highest excellence and attained the greatest suc- 
cess. He has left us an exposition of nearly the whole word of 
God ; and it is not only immeasurably superior to any commentary 
that preceded it, but it has continued ever since, and continues 
to this day, to be regarded by all competent judges as a work of 
the highest value, and as manifesting marvellous perspicacity and 
soundness of judgment. There is no department of theological 
study the cultivators of which, in modern times, are more dis- 
posed to regard with something like contempt the labours and 
attainments of their predecessors, and to consider themselves as 
occupying a much higher platform, than the exact and critical 
interpretation of Scripture ; and we think it must be admitted 
that in modern times greater improvements have been made in 
this department of theological science than in any other. Yet 
Calvin's Commentary continues to secure the respect and the 
admiration of the most competent judges, both in this country and 
on the continent, even of those who are disposed to estimate most 
highly the superiority of the present age over preceding genera- 
tions in the department of scriptural exegesis. And it is perhaps 
the most striking illustration of the extraordinary gifts which God 
bestowed upon Calvin, and of the value of the services which he 
has rendered to Christian truth and to theological science, that he 
reached such distinguished excellence, and has exerted so extensive 



298 



JOHN CALVIN. 



[Essay VI. 



and permanent an influence, both as an accurate interpreter of 
Scripture, and as a systematic expounder of the great doctrines 
of God's word.* 

Besides the Commentary upon Scripture and the " Institutes," 
the leading departments of Calvin's works are his " Tractatus " 
and his " Epistolse," both of which are much less known amongst 
us. than they should be. The " Tractatus " are chiefly controver- 
sial pieces, in defence of the leading doctrines of his system when 
assailed by adversaries, and in opposition to the errors of the 
Papists, the Anabaptists, the Libertines, the advocates of compro- 
mises with the Church of Rome, and the assailants of the ortho- 
dox doctrine of the Trinity. His " Epistolse" consist partly of 
confidential correspondence with his friends, and partly of answers 
to applications made to him from all parts of the Protestant world, 
asking his opinion and advice upon all the most important topics 
that occurred, connected with the administration of ecclesiastical 
affairs in that most important crisis of the church's history. They 
manifest throughout the greatest practical wisdom and the truest 
scriptural moderation, as well as warm friendship and cordial 
affection ; and the perusal of them is indispensable to our form- 
ing a right estimate of Calvin's character, and of the spirit and 
motives by which he was animated, while it is abundantly suffi- 
cient of itself to dispel many of the slanders by which he has 
been assailed. 

In these different departments of his works, we have Calvin 
presented to us as an interpreter of Scripture, as a systematic 
expounder of the scheme of Christian doctrine, as a controversial 



* In proof of the truth of this 
statement of the high estimate of Cal- 
vin's qualifications and success in the 
department of exegesis, formed by the 
most competent judges in the present 
day, it is enough to refer to Professor 
Tholuck's elaborate Dissertation on 
Calvin as an interpreter of the holy 
Scripture. Tholuck has published edi- 
tions of Calvin's Commentaries on the 
Psalms, and on the New Testament ; 
and in the dissertation referred to he 
has set forth the grounds of the high 
estimate he had formed of the value of 
these works, under the four heads of 
Calvin's doctrinal impartiality, exege- 
tical tact, various learning, and deep 



Christian piety. Tholuck's very high 
estimate of Calvin as an interpreter of 
Scripture, is the more to be relied on, 
and has probably exerted the greater 
influence in Germany, because he is 
not himself a Calvinist, and indeed 
brings out, in the conclusion of his 
dissertation, his divergence from Cal- 
vin's views on predestination and 
cognate topics. Bretschneider and 
Hengstenberg also, critics of the high- 
est reputation, and of very different 
schools of theology, both from Tholuck 
and from each other, have borne the 
strongest testimony to Calvin's qua- 
lifications as an interpreter. 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 299 

defender of truth and impugner of error, and as a friend and 
practical adviser in the regulation of the affairs of the church; 
and his pre-eminent excellence in all these departments are, we 
are persuaded, such as justly to entitle him to a place in the 
estimation and gratitude of the church of Christ, which no other 
uninspired man is entitled to share. Calvin certainly was not 
free from the infirmities which are always found in some form or 
degree even in the best men ; and in particular, he occasionally 
exhibited an angry impatience of contradiction and opposition, 
and sometimes assailed and treated the opponents of the truth 
and cause of God with a violence of invective which cannot be 
defended, and should certainly not be imitated. He was not free 
from error, and is not to be implicitly followed in his interpreta- 
tion of Scripture, or in his exposition of doctrine. But whether 
we look to the powers and capacities with which God endowed 
him, the manner in which he employed them, and the results by 
which his labours have been followed, — or to the Christian wis- 
dom, magnanimity, and devotedness which marked his character 
and generally regulated his conduct, there is probably not one 
among the sons of men, beyond the range of those whom God 
miraculously inspired by His Spirit, who has stronger claims upon 
our veneration and gratitude. 

We believe that this is in substance the view generally enter- 
tained of Calvin by all who have read his works, and who have 
seen ground to adopt in the. main the system of doctrine which he 
inculcated as based upon divine authority. Many men who were 
not Calvinists have borne the highest testimony to Calvin's great 
talents and his noble character, to his literary excellences and his 
commanding influence. But those who are persuaded that he 
brought out a full, and in the main accurate view of the truth 
of God with respect to the way of salvation and the organization 
of the Christian church, must ever regard him in a very different 
light from those who have formed an opposite judgment upon 
these subjects. If Calvin's system of doctrine, government, and 
w T orship is in the main scriptural, he must have enjoyed very 
special and abundant communications of God's Spirit in the for- 
mation of his convictions, and he must have rendered most im- 
portant services to mankind by the diffusion of invaluable truth. 
Men who are not Calvinists may admire his wonderful talents, 
and do justice to the elevation of his general character, and the 



300 



JOHN CALVIN. 



[Essay VI. 



purity and disinterestedness of his motives. But unless they are 
persuaded that his views upon most points were in the main 
accordant w T ith Scripture, they cannot regard him with the pro- 
found veneration which Calvinists feel, when they contemplate 
him as God's chosen instrument for diffusing His truth ; nor can 
they cherish anything like the same estimate of the magnitude of 
the services he has rendered to mankind, and of the gratitude to 
which in consequence he is entitled. 

The Calvin Translation Society, which has done a great and 
useful work by making almost all his writings accessible to English 
readers, translated and circulated Prof essor Tholuck's Dissertation 
formerly referred to ; and subjoined to it a number of testimonies 
in commendation of Calvin's works, from eminent men of all 
classes and opinions, of all ages and countries, including not only 
Calvinists and theologians, but also infidels and Arminians, states- 
men and philosophers, scholars and men of letters. These testi- 
monies have been added to from time to time, and being now 
collected together, they fill above 100 pages in the last volume of 
his works, which contains the translation of his Commentary upon 
Joshua. Many more testimonies to the value and excellence of 
Calvin's writings might have been produced.* But this collec- 
tion as it stands could not probably be matched in the kind and 
amount of commendation it exhibits, in the case of any other 
man whose writings and labours were confined to the department 
of religion. 

Indeed, it is probably true that no man whose time and talents 
were devoted exclusively to subjects connected with Christianity 
and the church, has ever received so large a share both of praise 
and of censure. He has been commended in the strongest terms 
by many of the highest names both in Christian and in general 
literature; and the strength of their commendation has been gene- 
rally very much in proportion to their capacities and opportunities 
of judging. But if he has received the highest commendation, 
he has also been visited with a vast amount of censure ; the one 



* There are some additional and 
very valuable testimonies to Calvin's 
character and writings given in his Life 
in Haag's " La France Protestante," 
torn. iii. p. 109, especially from three 
of the most eminent literary men of 
the present age, Guizot, Mignet, and 



Sayous. Haag brings out also an 
interesting contrast between the can- 
did admissions of some of the older 
Eomish writers, and the unscrupulous 
mendacity of his latest Popish bio- 
grapher Audin. 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 301 

being really, in the circumstances, just about as significant a tes- 
timony to his excellence and his influence as the other. The 
Papists had the sagacity to see that Calvin — by his great talents 
and the commanding influence which he exerted — was really their 
most formidable adversary at the .era of the Keformation. And 
in accordance with their ordinary principles and policy, they 
endeavoured to ruin his character by the vilest slanders. Most of 
these calumnies being utterly destitute of all evidence, and there- 
fore disgraceful only to those who invented or repeated them, 
have long since been abandoned by every Papist who retained 
even the slightest regard for character or decency, though they 
are still occasionally brought forward or insinuated. Some of the 
Lutheran writers of his own time, and of the succeeding genera- 
tion, mortified apparently that Calvin's influence and reputation 
were eclipsing those of their master, railed against him with bitter 
malignity, and were even mean enough sometimes to countenance 
the Popish slanders against his character. Specimens of this dis- 
creditable conduct on the part of the Lutherans, may be seen in 
the answers made by Calvin himself, and by Beza, to the attacks 
of Westphalus and Heshusius. 

During Calvin's life, and for more than half a century after 
his death, most of the divines of the Church of England adopted 
his theological views, and spoke of him with the greatest respect. 
But after, through the influence of Archbishop Laud and the 
prevalence of Arminian and Pelagian views, sound doctrine and 
true religion were in a great measure banished from that church, 
Calvin, as might be expected, came to be regarded in a very 
different light. During most of last century, the generality 
of the Episcopalian divines who had occasion to speak of him 
and his doctrines indulged in bitter vituperation against him, 
and not unfrequently talked as if they regarded him as a monster 
who ought to be held up to execration. Indeed, we do not know 
that theological literature furnishes a more melancholy exhibition 
of ignorance, prejudice, and bitter hatred of God's truth, than 
the general mode of speaking about Calvin and his doctrines 
that prevailed among the Episcopalian clergy of last century. 
Some of them write as if they were ignorant enough to believe 
that Calvinism and Presbyterianism were invented by Calvin, 
and were never heard of in the church till the sixteenth century ; 
and when they speak of him in connection with his views about 



302 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VT. 

the divine sovereignty and decrees, we might be tempted to think, 
from the spirit they often manifest, that they looked upon him 
almost as if he himself were the author or cause of the fate of 
those who finally perish. It is but fair to say that this state of 
things has been greatly .improved since the latter part of last 
century. This is owing partly to the high commendation which 
Bishop Horsley gave to Calvin's writings, and to the public 
advice which he tendered to the Episcopalian clergy, as one of 
which they stood greatly in need, viz. to see that they understood 
what Calvinism was before they attacked it ; — but chiefly to that 
far greater prevalence of evangelical doctrine and true religion, 
which, though grievously damaged by Tractarianism, still forms 
so pleasing a feature in the condition of the English Church. 

Calvin has also had the honour to receive at all times a very 
large share of the enmity of " the world of the ungodly," — of men 
who hate God's truth, and all who have been eminently honoured 
by Him to be instrumental in promoting it. Such persons seem 
to have a sort of instinctive deep-seated dislike to Calvin, which 
leads them to dwell upon and exaggerate everything in his cha- 
racter and conduct that may seem fitted to depreciate him. It is 
not uncommon, even in our own age and country, to hear infidel 
and semi-infidel declaimers, who know nothing of Calvin's writings 
or labours, when they w T ish to say a particularly smart and clever 
thing against bigotry and intolerance, — meaning thereby honest 
zeal for God's truth, — bring in something about Calvin burning 
Servetus. 

The leading charges commonly adduced against Calvin's cha- 
racter, as distinguished from his doctrines, are pride, arrogance, 
spiritual tyranny, intolerance, and persecution. Some of these 
are charges which, as universal experience shows, derive their 
plausibility in a great measure from the view that may be taken 
of the general character and leading motives of the man against 
whom they may be directed, and of the goodness and rectitude of 
the objects which he mainly and habitually aimed at. Those who 
have an unfavourable opinion of a man's general motives and 
objects, will see evidence of pride, obstinacy, and intolerance in 
matters in which those who believe that he was generally influ- 
enced by a regard to God's glory and the advancement of Christ's 
cause, will see only integrity and firmness, uncompromising vigour 
and decision, mixed it may be with the ordinary remains of 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 303 

human infirmity. The piety and integrity of Calvin, his para- 
mount regard to the honour of God and the promotion of truth 
and righteousness, to the advancement of Christ's cause and the 
spiritual welfare of men, are beyond all reasonable doubt. And 
those who, convinced of this, examine his history with attention and 
impartiality, will have no difficulty in seeing that for most of these 
charges there is no real foundation ; and that, in so far as evidence, 
can be adduced in support of any of them, it really proves nothing 
more than that Calvin manifested, like all other men, the remains 
of human infirmity, especially, of course, in those respects to which 
his natural temperament and the influence of his position and cir- 
cumstances more peculiarly disposed him. The state of his health, 
the bent of his natural dispositions, and the whole influence of his 
position, occupations, and habits, were unfavourable to the culti- 
vation of those features of character, and those modes of speaking 
and acting, which are usually regarded as most pleasing to others, 
and best fitted to call forth love and affection in the ordinary 
intercourse of life. The flow of animal spirits, the ready interest 
in all ordinary commonplace things, and the play of the social feel- 
ings, which give such a charm to Luther's conversation and letters, 
were alien to Calvin's constitutional tendencies, and to his ordi- 
nary modes of thinking and feeling. He had a great and exalted 
mission assigned to him ; he was fully alive to this, thoroughly 
determined to devote himself unreservedly, and to subordinate 
everything else, to the fulfilment of his mission, and not uncon- 
scious of its dignity, or of the powers which had been conferred 
upon him for working it out. With such a man — so placed, so 
endowed, and so occupied — the temptation, of course, would be 
to identify himself and all his views and proceedings with the 
cause of God and His truth, — to prosecute these high and holy 
objects sternly and uncompromisingly, without much regard to 
the opinions and inclinations of those around him, — and to deal 
with opposition, as if it necessarily implied something sinful in 
those from whom it proceeded, as if opposition to him involved 
opposition to his Master. Calvin would have been something 
more than man, if, endowed and situated as he was, he had never 
yielded to this temptation, and been led to deal with opponents 
and opposition in a way which only the commission of the inspired 
prophets would have warranted. 

Calvin did occasionally give plain indications of undue self- 



304 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

confidence and self-complacency, and of a mixture of personal 
and carnal feelings and motives, with his zeal for the promotion 
of truth and righteousness. But there is nothing suggested by a 
fair view of his whole history that is fitted to throw any doubt upon 
the general excellence of his character, as tried by the highest 
standard that has ordinarily been exhibited among men ; or on the 
general purity, elevation, and disinterestedness of the motives by 
which he was mainly and habitually influenced. There is suffi- 
cient evidence that he still had, like the apostle, " a law in his 
members warring against the law of his mind," and sometimes 
" bringing him into captivity to the law of sin." And from what 
we know, from Scripture and experience, of the deceitfulness of 
the heart and the deceitfulness of sin, we cannot doubt that there 
was a larger admixture of what was sinful in his motives and con- 
duct than he himself was distinctly aware of. But this, too, is 
characteristic of all men, — even the best of them, — and there is 
really no ground whatever for regarding Calvin as manifesting a 
larger measure of human infirmity than attaches, in some form or 
other, to the best and holiest of our race ; while there is abundant 
evidence that, during a life of great labour and great suffering, 
he fully established his supreme devoteclness to God's glory and 
service, his thorough resignation to His will, his perfect willing- 
ness to labour in season and out of season, to spend and to be 
spent, for the sake of Christ and His gospel. It was assuredly no 
such proud, arrogant, domineering, heartless despot as Calvin is 
often represented to have been, who composed the dedications 
which we find prefixed to his commentaries upon the different 
portions of the Bible, and many of his letters to his friends, — 
expressing often the warmest affection, the deepest gratitude for 
instruction and services received ; and exhibiting a most cordial 
appreciation of the excellences of others, a humble estimate of 
himself, and a perfect willingness to be or to do anything for the 
sake of Christ and of His cause. It was certainly no such man as 
he is often described, who lived so long on such terms with his 
colleagues in the ministry, and held such a place, not only in 
their veneration and confidence, but in their esteem and affection, 
as are indicated by the whole state of things unfolded to us in 
Beza's life of him. 

With reference to the principal charge which, in his own as 
well as subsequent times, was brought against his motives and 






Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 305 

temper, Calvin has put on record the following protestation, in a 
letter written towards the end of his life, in the year 1558 : — 

" I can with reason boast, however much ungodly men call me inexorable, 
that I have never become the enemy of one human being on the ground of 
personal injuries. I confess that I am irritable ; and, though this vice dis- 
pleases me, I have not succeeded in curing myself as much as I could wish. 
But, though many persons have unjustly attacked me, an innocent, and, what 
is more, well-deserving man, — have perfidiously plotted all kinds of mischief 
against me, and most cruelly harassed me, — I can defy any one to point out 
a single person to whom I have studied to return the like, even though the 
means and the opportunity were in my power."* 

On a ground formerly adverted to, we have no doubt that 
there was sometimes, in Calvin's feelings and motives, a larger 
admixture of the personal and the imperfect than he was himself 
aware of, or than he here admits. We always shrink from men 
making professions about the purity of their motives, as we cannot 
but fear that this indicates the want of an adequate sense of the 
deceitfulness of sin and of their own hearts, a disposition to think 
of themselves more highly than they ought to think. It would 
not, we think, have been at all unwarrantable or unbecoming, if 
Calvin, in the passage we have quoted, had made a fuller admis- 
sion of sinful motives, which he would no doubt have acknowledged 
that the Searcher of hearts must have seen in him. And yet we 
have no doubt that his statement, strong as it is, is substantially 
true, so far as concerns anything that came fairly under the 
cognizance of his fellow-men — anything on which other men were 
entitled to form a judgment. Whatever the Searcher of hearts 
might see in him, we believe that there was nothing in his ordinary 
conduct, in his usual course of outward procedure, that could 
entitle any man to have denied the truth of the statement which 
he here made about himself, or that would afford any materials 
for disproving it. And if this or anything like it be true, then 
the practical result is, that the common notions about Calvin's 
irritability, the extent to which he was ordinarily influenced by 
personal, selfish, and sinful motives, are grossly exaggerated ; and 
that, though this might be said to be his besetting sin, — that to 
which his constitutional tendencies and the whole influence of his 
position chiefly disposed him, — there was really nothing in it that 
entitled any of his fellow-men to reproach him, or that could be 



* Letters of John Calvin, by Dr Bonnet, vol. iii. p. 429. 
VOL. I. 20 



306 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

justly regarded as anything more than a display of that common 
human infirmity, which even the best men manifest in some form 
or degree. 

Calvin's superiority to the influence of personal, angry, and 
vindictive feelings, is very fully brought out in the course he pur- 
sued with respect to the men who filled the office of the ministry 
at Geneva after Farel and he had been driven into exile in 1538, 
— a topic which has not been brought out in any of the histories 
of Calvin so prominently as it should have been. Calvin and 
Farel had been banished from Geneva, solely because of their 
integrity and boldness in maintaining the purity of the church in 
the exercise of discipline, by refusing to admit unworthy persons 
to the Lord's Supper. Their colleagues in the ministry who were 
not banished, and the persons appointed to succeed them, were of 
course men who submitted to the dictation of the civil authorities 
in the exercise of discipline, and admitted to the Lord's table 
indiscriminately without regard to character. These men were 
no doubt strongly tempted, in self-defence, to depreciate as much 
as possible the character and conduct of Calvin and Farel, and to 
this temptation they yielded without reserve. Three or four 
months after his banishment, Calvin wrote from Basle to Farel, 
who had been called to Neuf chatel, in the following terms : *— 

" How our successors are likely to get on I can conjecture from the first 
beginnings. "While already they entirely break off every appearance of peace 
by their want of temper, they suppose that the best course for themselves was 
to tear in pieces our estimation, publicly and privately, so as to render us as 
odious as possible. But if we know that they cannot calumniate us, excepting 
in so far as God permits, we know also the end God has in view in granting 
such permission. Let us humble ourselves, therefore, unless we wish to strive 
with God when He would humble us." 

A division soon arose at Geneva upon the question, whether or 
not the ministry of these men ought to be recognised and waited 
on. Many — and these, as might be expected, were the best men 
in the city in point of character and the most attached to Calvin 
— were of opinion that these men ought not to be treated as mini- 
sters, and that religious ordinances ought not to be received at their 
hands. Saunier and Cordier (author of the " Colloquies "), men of 
the highest character and standing, regents in the college, refused 



" Letters," vol. i. pp. 50, 51. 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 307 

to receive the Lord's Supper at the hands of these men, and were 
in consequence driven from their posts, and obliged to quit the 
city. Calvin — who had now taken up his abode at Strasburg — 
was consulted upon this important question of casuistry, and gave 
his decision on the side of peace and conciliation, advising them 
without any hesitation to recognise and wait upon the ministry of 
these men. And this may surely be regarded as a triumph of 
reason and conscience over personal and carnal feeling. In the 
whole circumstances of this case, as now adverted to, it is very 
plain that all the lower and more unworthy class of feelings, every- 
thing partaking of the character of selfishness in any of its forms 
or aspects, everything like wounded vanity or self-importance, 
everything like a tendency to indulge in anger or vindictiveness, 
must have tended towards leading Calvin to decide this question 
in accordance with the views of those in Geneva whom he most 
respected and esteemed. If Calvin had been such a man as he 
is often represented, — so arrogant and so imperious, so much dis- 
posed to estimate things by their bearing upon his own personal 
importance and self-complacency, and to resent opposition and de- 
preciation, — all that we know of human nature would lead us to 
expect, that he would have encouraged his friends to refuse all 
countenance to the existing clergy and to the ecclesiastical system 
which they administered. The fact that he gave an opposite 
advice may be fairly regarded as a proof, that the personal and 
the selfish (in the wide sense of undue regard to anything about 
self) had no such prominence or influence among his actuating 
motives as many seem to suppose, — that the lower and more 
unworthy motives were habitually subordinated to the purer and 
more elevated, — and that their operation, so far as they did operate, 
should not be regarded as distinctively characteristic of the indi- 
vidual, but merely as a symptom of the common human infirmity, 
which in some form or degree is exhibited by all men, even those 
who have been renewed in the spirit of their minds. 

As Calvin's conduct in this matter illustrates not only his 
elevation above the influence of personal and selfish feeling, but 
also his strong sense of the importance of respecting constituted 
authorities, and preserving the peace of the church, it may be 
worth while to bring out somewhat more fully what he thought 
and felt regarding it. The great general principle on which he 
founded his judgment upon this question was to this effect, that 



308 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

the men in office preached the substance of scriptural truth, and 
administered the sacraments in accordance with scriptural ar- 
rangements, notwithstanding the promiscuousness of the admission 
to partake in them, — and that this being secured, everything else 
was, in the circumstances, of comparatively inferior importance, 
and should be subordinated, as a motive in determining conduct, 
to the respect due to the ministerial office and the persons who in 
providence held it, and to a regard to the peace of the community. 
He distinctly admits that the people were entitled to judge for 
themselves, on their own responsibility, whether or not the mini- 
sters preached the gospel, and unless satisfied upon this point, 
were fully warranted to abandon their ministry, — recognising thus 
the paramount importance which Scripture assigns to the truth 
and the preaching of it, as the great determining element on this 
whole subject. It has been well said in regard to this matter, 
that preaching the truth is God's ordinance, but preaching error 
is not God's ordinance, and is therefore not entitled to any re- 
cognition or respect. The ground taken by Calvin recognises 
this principle, and therefore, though it is abundantly wide and 
lax, — more so, perhaps, than can be thoroughly defended, — it 
gives no countenance whatever to the views of those who advocate 
the warrantableness of waiting upon the ministry of men who 
do not preach the gospel, but who are supposed to have other 
recommendations, on the ground of their connection with some 
particular system or constitution, civil or ecclesiastical. Calvin's 
first explicit reference to this subject occurs in a letter to Farel, 
written from Strasburg in October 1538. The question as there 
put was this, " Whether it is lawful to receive the sacrament of 
the Lord's Supper from the hands of the new ministers, and to par- 
take of it along with such a promiscuous assemblage of unworthy 
communicants ? " Calvin's deliverance upon it was this : — 

" In this matter I quite agree with Capito. This, in brief, was the sum 
of our discussiou : that among Christians there ought to be so great a dislike 
of schism, as that they may always avoid it so far as lies in their power. That 
there ought to prevail among them such a reverence for the ministry of the 
word and of the sacraments, that wherever they perceive these things to be, 
there they may consider the church to exist. Whenever, therefore, it happens, 
by the Lord's permission, that the church is administered by pastors, whatever 
kind of persons they may be, if we see there the marks of the church, it will 
be better not to break the unity. Nor need it be any hindrance that some 
points of doctrine are not quite so pure, seeing that there is scarcely any 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 309 

church, which does not retain some remnants of former ignorance. It is suffi- 
cient for us if the doctrine on which the church of God is founded be recog- 
nised, and maintain its place. Nor should it prove any obstacle, that he ought 
not to be reckoned a lawful pastor who shall not only have fraudulently insinu- 
ated himself into the office of a true minister, but shall have wickedly usurped 
it. For there is no reason why every private person should mix himself up 
with these scruples. The sacraments are the means of communion with the 
church ; they must needs therefore be administered by the hands of pastors. 
In regard to those, therefore, who already occupy that position, legitimately 
or not, and although the right of judging as to that is not denied, it will be 
well to suspend judgment, in the meantime, until the matter shall have been 
legally adjudicated. Therefore, if men wait upon their ministry, they will 
run no risk, that they should appear either to acknowledge or approve, or in 
any way to ratify their commission. But by this means they will give a 
proof of their patience in tolerating those who they know will be condemned 
by a solemn judgment. The refusal at first of these excellent brethren did 
not surprise nor even displease me."* 

Calvin discussed the same subject more fully in a letter ad- 
dressed in June 1539, "To the Church at Geneva;" and as it 
is most honourably characteristic o.f its author, while this topic 
has not received the prominence in his history to which it is 
entitled, we shall quote the greater part of it. 

"Nothing, most beloved brethren, has caused me greater sorrow, since 
those disturbances which had so sadly scattered and almost entirely over- 
thrown your church, than when I understood your strivings and contentions 
with those ministers who succeeded us. For although the disorders which 
were inseparably connected with their first arrival among you, might with 
good reason prove offensive to you ; whatever may have given the occasion, I 
cannot hear without great and intense horror that any schism should settle 
down within the church. Wherefore, this was far more bitter to me than 
words can express ; — I allude to what I have heard about those your conten- 
tions, so long as you were tossed about in uncertainty ; since, owing to that 
circumstance, not only was your church rent by division quite openly, but 

also the ecclesiastical ministry exposed to obloquy and contempt 

Now, therefore, when, contrary to my expectation, I have heard that the 
reconciliation between your pastors and the neighbouring churches, having 
been confirmed also by Farel and by myself, was not found to be sufficient 
for binding you together in sincere and friendly affection, and by the tie 
of a lawful connection with your pastors, to whom the care of your souls is 
committed, I felt myself compelled to write to you, that I might endeavour, 
so far as lay in me, to find a medicine for this disease, which, without great 
sin against God, it was not possible for me to conceal. And although my 



* Vol. i. pp. 77-8. 



310 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

former letters had not been very lovingly received by you, I was nevertheless 
unwilling to be wanting in my duty, so that, should I have no further success, 
I would at least deliver my own soul. Neither do I so much question your 
spirit of obedience (of which, indeed, I have proof) towards God and His 
ministers, as that I can at all fear that this my exhortation will have no 
weight with you, neither has my sincerity towards you lain concealed. That 
my advice has not been taken by you, I consider is rather to be imputed to 
the circumstances of the time, when such was the state of disorder, that it was 
very difficult indeed to determine what was best. Now at length, however, 
when your affairs, by the favour of God, are in a more settled and composed 
state, I trust that you will readily perceive that my only object is to lead you 
into the right way ; that being so persuaded with regard to me, you may 
show in reality by what motive you are brought into subjection to the truth. 
Especially, I ask you to weigh maturely, having put aside all respect of per- 
sons, of what honour the Lord accounts them worthy, and what grace He has 
committed to those whom He has appointed in His own church as pastors and 
ministers of the word. For He not only commands us to render a willing 
obedience, with fear and trembling, to the word while it is proclaimed to us, 
but also commands that the ministers of the word are to be treated with hon- 
our and reverence, as being clothed with the authority of His ambassadors, 
whom He would have to be acknowledged as His own angels and messengers. 
Certainly so long as we were among you, we did not try much to impress upon 
you the dignity of our ministry, that we might avoid all ground of suspicion ; 
now, however, that we are placed beyond the reach of danger, I speak more 
freely my mind. Had I to do with the ministers themselves, I would teach 
what I considered to be the extent and measure of their office, and to what 
you also are bound as sitting under their ministry. Since, of a truth, every 
one must render an account of his own life, each individual for himself, as 
well ministers as private persons, it is rather to be desired that every one 
for himself may consider what is due to others, than that he may require 
what may further be due to him from some one else. Where such considera- 
tions have their due weight, then also this established rule will operate 
effectually, namely, that those who hold the office of ministers of the 
word, since the guidance and rule over your 'souls is entrusted to their 
care, are to be owned and acknowledged in the relation of parents, to be 
held in esteem, and honoured on account of that office which, by the 
calling of the Lord, they discharge among you. Nor does the extent of 
their function reach so far as to deprive you of the right conferred on 
you by God (as upon all His own people), that every pastor may be sub- 
ject to examination, that those who are thus approven may be distin- 
guished from the wicked, and all such may be held back who, under the guise 
of shepherds, betray a wolfish rapacity. This, however, is my earnest wish 
concerning those who in some measure fulfil the duty of pastors, so as to be 
tolerable, that you also may conduct yourselves towards them in a Christian 
spirit, and with this view that you may make greater account of that which 
may be due by you to others, than what others owe to yourselves. 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 311 

" This also I will set forth plainly and in a few words. Two things here are 
to be considered. The one, that the calling of your ministers does not happen 
without the will of God. For although that change which took place upon our 
departure may have been brought to pass by the subtlety of the devil, so that 
whatever followed on that change may justly be suspected by you : in it, never- 
theless, the remarkable grace of the Lord is to be acknowledged by you, who 
has not allowed you to be left altogether destitute ; nor let you fall back 
again under the yoke of Antichrist, from which He hath once rescued you 
already. But He rather wished that both the doctrine of the gospel should 
still exist, and that some appearance of a church should nourish among you, 
so that with a quiet conscience you might continue there. We have always 
admonished you that you should acknowledge that overturning of your 
church as the visitation of the Lord sent upon you, and necessary also for us. 
Neither ought you so much to direct your thoughts against the wicked and 
the instruments of Satan, as upon personal and individual sins, which have 
deserved no lighter punishment, but indeed a far more severe chastisement. 
I would now therefore once more repeat the same advice. For besides that 
such is the particular and suitable remedy for obtaining mercy and deliverance 
of the Lord from that just judgment which lies upon you, there is also another 
very weighty reason that ought to bring you to repentance ; lest peradven- 
ture we may seem to bury in oblivion that very great benefit of the Lord 
towards you, in not having allowed the gospel edifice to fall utterly to ruin 
in the midst of you, seeing that it has held so together, that as an instance 
of His direct interference it must be reckoned as a miracle of His power, by 
which alone you were preserved from that greatest of all calamity. However 
that may be, it is certainly the work of God's providence, that you still have 
ministers who exercise the office of shepherds of souls and of government in 
your church. We must also take into account, that those servants of God 
who exercise the ministry of the word in the neighbouring churches, have, in 
order to check such dangerous contests, themselves approved of the calling of 
those men ; whose opinions we also have subscribed, since no better method 
occurred to us by which we could consult your welfare and advantage. 
That you are well assured of our conscientious integrity we have no doubt, so 
that you ought at once to conclude, that we did nothing which was not sin- 
cere and upright. But putting out of view even all idea of kindly affection, 
the very discussion of that delicate point was a proof quite as sincere as could 
be given on my part, that you would have no obscure instruction from me. 
Therefore, you must seriously look to it, that you are not too ready to disap- 
prove of what the servants of God judge to be essential to your advantage and 
the preservation of the church. The other point to be well considered by you 
is this, that there may be due inspection of their regular discharge of duty, 
that they may fulfil the ministry of the church. And here, I confess, discre- 
tion evidently (nor would I wish to be the author of bringing any tyranny 
into the church) is required, that pious men should esteem as pastors those 
who do not stand only on their calling. For it is an indignity not to be 
borne, if that reverence and regard is to be given to certain personages, which 



312 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI 

the Lord himself desires may be assigned only to the ministers of the word. 
Consequently, I readily grant you concerning that minister who shall not have 
taught the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, whatever title or prerogative he 
may put forth as a pretence, that he is unworthy to be considered as a pastor, 
to whom due obedience can be shown in the ministry. Because, however, it 
is clear to me in reference to our brethren who at present hold the office of 
the ministry among you, that the gospel is taught you by them, I do not see 
what can excuse you, as before the Lord, while you either neglect or reject 
them. If some one may reply, that this or that in their doctrine or morals is 
objectionable, I require you, in the first place, by our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
so far as may be, you will first of all weigh the matter in your mind, and 
without any hastiness of judgment. For since we all of us owe this on the 
score of charity to one another, that we may not rashly pass sentence against 
others, but rather, so far as lies in us, that we hold fast by clemency and 
justice, much more is that moderation to be practised towards those whom 
the Lord is pleased to peculiarly distinguish above others. And even although 
there may be somewhat wanting which might justly be required of them (as 
to which I am not able to speak definitively, since I have no certain know- 
ledge), you must just consider, that you will find no person so thoroughly 
perfect as that there shall not be many things which are still to be desired. 
Wherefore that rule of charity is not duly honoured by us, unless we uphold 
our neighbours, even with their very infirmities, provided we recognise in 
them the true fear of God and the sincere desire of following the very truth 
itself. Lastly, I cannot possibly doubt, in so far as concerns their doctrine, 
but that they faithfully deliver to you the chief heads of Christian religion, 
such as are necessary to salvation, and join therewith the administration of 
the sacraments of the Lord. Wherever this is established, there also the very 
substance of the ministry ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ thrives and 
flourishes ; and all due reverence and respect is to be observed toward him 
who is the minister. 

" Now, therefore, most beloved brethren, I entreat and admonish you, in 
the name and strength of our Lord Jesus Christ, that turning away from man 
your heart and mind, you betake yourselves to that one and holy Redeemer, 
and that you reflect, how much we are bound to submit entirely to His 
sacred commands. And if everything He has appointed among you ought 
deservedly to be held inviolate, no consideration whatever ought so to deflect 
you from the path of duty, that you may not preserve whole and entire that 
ministration which He so seriously commends to you. If already you dispute 
and quarrel with your pastors to the extent of brawls and railing, as I hear 
has occurred, it is quite evident, from such a course of proceeding, that the 
ministry of those very persons in which the brightness of the glory of our Lord 
Jesus Christ ought to shine forth, must be subject to contempt and reproach, 
and all but trampled under foot. It is therefore incumbent on you carefully to 
beware, lest while we seem to ourselves only to insult men, we in fact declare 
war on God himself. Nor, besides, ought it to seem a light matter to you, 
that sects and divisions are formed and cherished within the church, which no 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 313 

one who has a Christian heart beating in his breast can, without horror, even 
drink in by the hearing of the ears. But that the state of matters is indeed 
such where a separation of this kind exists, and as it were a secession between 
pastor and people, the thing speaks for itself. In conclusion, therefore, accept 
this admonition, if you wish me to be held by you as a brother, that there 
may be among you a solid agreement, which may correspond with such a 
name ; that you may not reject that ministry which, for your advantage and 
the prosperity of the church, I have been forced to approve of without any fear 
or favour in respect of men. . . . Here, therefore, with the most fervent saluta- 
tion written by my own hand, do I supplicate the Lord Jesus, that He protect 
you in His holy fortress of defence ; that He may heap on you His gifts more 
and more ; that He may restore your church to due order, and specially that 
He may fill you with His own spirit of gentleness, so that in true conjunction of 
soul we may every one bestow ourselves in the promoting of His kingdom."* 

We are not prepared to adopt every statement made by Cal- 
vin in this letter to the church of Geneva, or in the one to Farel 
formerly quoted ; but we think it very plain, that the decision 
which he gave upon the important practical question submitted 
to him, and the main grounds on which he rested it, conclusively 
disprove some of the more unfavourable prevalent impressions 
in regard to his character and motives, — especially the supposed 
undue predominance of pride and arrogance, and more generally 
of the irascible and vindictive tendencies of human nature. In- 
deed, we cannot conceive how any one can read Calvin's letters 
with attention and impartiality without being satisfied of the 
injustice of these impressions. Knowing how prevalent, and yet 
how unreasonable, was the impression of Calvin's coldness and 
heartlessness, and of his intemperate violence and imperious arro- 
gance, we once took the trouble of running over the first two 
volumes of the English translation of his Letters by Dr Bonnet, 
published at Edinburgh a few years ago, to collect proofs of the 
falsehood of these impressions, and we noted on the fly-leaf the 
pages which furnished materials fitted to serve this purpose. We 
arranged the references under the two heads of — 1st, Strong and 
hearty affection ; and 2d, Moderation and forbearance — i.e. mode- 
ration in his own judgment upon interesting and important topics, 
and forbearance with those who differed from him. Our references 
under both heads, our evidences of the possession of both these 
features of character, soon swelled to a large extent, and at length 



* Calvin's Letters, by Bonnet, vol. i. pp. 118-125. 



314 



JOHN CALVIN. 



[Essay VI. 



presented a body of proof which seems to us perfectly overwhelm- 
ing. It may interest and gratify some of our readers, if we give 
as a foot-note the pages we noted in carrying out this design.* 
They will find in them abundant evidence of Calvin's strong and 
hearty affection, and also of his moderation and forbearance. 

Every one knows that the favourite topic of declamation and 
invective with the enemies of Calvin, is the share which he had 
in the death of Servetus. All who, from whatever cause, hate 
Calvin, and are anxious to damage his reputation, are accustomed 
to dwell upon this transaction, as if it were one of the most dis- 
graceful and atrocious which history records ; until, from disgust 
at the shameless falsehood, injustice, and absurdity of the common 
misrepresentations regarding it, we are in some danger of being 
tempted to view it, and other transactions of a similar kind, with 
less disapprobation than they deserve. 

Gibbon said, that he was " more deeply scandalized at the 
single execution of Servetus, than at the hecatombs which have 
blazed at the auto-da-fes of Spain and Portugal." And Hallam 
has imitated the unprincipled infidel by saying, " The death of 
Servetus has perhaps as many circumstances of aggravation as any 
execution for heresy that ever occurred."! The latest writer we 
have seen upon this subject, Mr Wallace, — we presume a Unitarian 
minister, — in a work of very considerable research, entitled u Anti- 
Trinitarian Biography," in three vols., published in 1850, writes 
about it in the following offensive style : — " A bloodier page does 
not stain the annals of martyrdom than that in which in this 
horrible transaction is recorded;" he describes it as stamping 
the character of Calvin as that " of a persecutor of the first 
class, without one humane or redeeming quality to divest it of its 
criminality or to palliate its enormity," as " one of the foulest 
murders recorded in the history of persecution ;" and he speaks 
" of the odium which his malignant and cruel treatment of Servetus 
has so deservedly brought upon him."{ While men, who are the 



*Vol. i. pp. 75, 79, 86, 89, 111, 
119, 130, 133, 147, 151, 187, 195, 
205, 208, 214, 222, 230, 242, 270, 
283, 421, 434, 452 ; vol. ii. pp. 43, 50, 
53, 95, 123, 257, 260-1, 295, 323, 
377, 386, 407 : and of his moderation 
and forbearance, Letters xxv. and 
xxvii. pp. 78, 87, 90-92, 113, 117, 
126, 135, 158-9, 163, 175, 188-9, 



194, 204, 211, 243, 257, 266, 270, 
290, 306, 315, 356, 380, 396, 409, 
417, 430 ; vol. ii. pp. 20-1, 47-9, 106, 
177, 192, 212, 224, 233, 258, 270, 
286, 315, 333, 346, 353, 394, 418, 
428, 432. 

f Literature of Europe, vol. i. p. 
547. 

$ Vol. i. pp. 442-6. 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 315 

avowed opponents of almost everything that has been generally 
reckoned peculiar and distinctive in the Christian revelation speak 
on this subject in such terms, other men, whom it would be unfair 
to rank in this category, deal with this topic in a manner that is 
far from being satisfactory ; and we could point to indications of 
this both in Dr Stebbing, the translator of Henry's admirable Life 
of Calvin, and in Principal Tulloch. On these accounts it may 
be proper to make some observations upon this subject, though we 
cannot go into much detail. 

It is common for those who discuss this subject under the 
influence of dislike to Calvin, to allege that those who do not 
sympathize with them in all their invectives against him, are to 
be regarded as defending or apologizing for his conduct in the 
matter. Mr Wallace, in the work just referred to,* says: — 
" Among other recent apologists of the stern Genevese Eef ormer, 
M. Albert Rilliet and the Rev. W. K. Tweedie (now Dr Tweedie 
of Edinburgh) stand conspicuous, but their arguments have been 
ably and triumphantly refuted by a well-known writer in the 
Christian Reformer for January 1847." 

Now it is not true, in any fair sense of the word, that M. 
Rilliet and Dr Tweedie are apologists for Calvin in this matter. 
They both decidedly condemn his conduct ; and they merely aim 
at bringing out fully the whole facts of the case, in order that a 
fair estimate may be formed of it, and that the amount of con- 
demnation may be, upon a full and impartial examination of all 
its features and circumstances, duly proportioned to its demerits. 
Rilliet has evidently no sympathy with Calvin's theological views, 
or with his firm and uncompromising zeal for truth. He has acted 
only the part of an impartial historian. He has brought out fully 
and accurately the whole documents connected with the trial of 
Servetus at Geneva, and he has pointed to some of the inferences 
which they clearly establish, — especially these, that Servetus's 
whole conduct during the trial was characterized by recklessness 
and violence, or by cunning and falsehood ; that Calvin was at 
this time at open war with the prevailing party among the civil 
authorities of Geneva, on the important subject of excommunica- 
tion ; that they took the management of the trial very much into 
their own hands, without consulting with him ; that Calvin's 



* Vol. i. p. 444. 



316 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

interposition in the matter was much more likely to have brought 
about the acquittal than the condemnation of Servetus ; that 
Servetus knew this, and acted upon it; and that this was the 
explanation of the reckless violence with which, during one im- 
portant stage in the trial, he publicly assailed Calvin. The only 
fair question is, Are these positions historically true ? Have they 
been sufficiently established % M. Billiet and Dr Tweedie answer 
in the affirmative, and are in consequence set down as apologists 
of Calvin. As to Mr Wallace's allegation that M. Billiet and 
Dr Tweedie have been triumphantly refuted in the Christian 
Reformer for January 1847, this is really little better than bluster- 
ing. There is nothing in the article referred to that refutes the 
above-mentioned positions of Billiet, which must be regarded as 
now conclusively established. The article is mainly occupied with 
an attempt to prove that the authorities of Geneva had no juris- 
diction over Servetus, since the offence for which he was tried was 
not committed within their territory, and that there was no law 
then in force in Geneva attaching to heresy the penalty of death. 
The writer has failed in establishing these two positions ; but even 
if he had succeeded in proving them, this would not materially 
affect the question, so far as concerns its bearing upon Calvin, or 
the estimate that ought to be formed of the part he took in it. 
There is more plausible ground for Mr Wallace's allegation that 
Dr Henry, in his Life of Calvin, defends his conduct in this 
matter, although here, too, there is a great want of fairness mani- 
fested by not giving a full view of the biographer's sentiments. 

No man in modern times defends Calvin's conduct towards 
Servetus. No one indeed can defend it, unless he be prepared 
to defend the lawfulness of putting heretics to death, and this 
doctrine has been long abandoned by all but Papists. There is 
no other ground on which Calvin can be defended, for he has 
distinctly and fully assumed the responsibility of the death of 
Servetus, though he endeavoured unsuccessfully to prevent his 
being burned. Some injudicious admirers of Calvin have 
attempted to exempt him from the responsibility of Servetus's 
death ; and it is quite true that other causes contributed to bring 
it about, and that it would in all probability have been effected, 
whether Calvin had interfered in the matter or not. But there 
can be no doubt that Calvin beforehand, at the time, and after 
the event, explicitly approved and defended the putting him to 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 317 

death, and assumed the responsibility of the transaction. Some 
of Calvin's admirers were at one time anxious to free him from 
the charge, founded on the letter which he was alleged to have 
written to Farel in 1546, and in which this passage occurs : — 
" Servetus wrote to me lately, and added to his letter a large 
volume of his delirious fancies. He intimates that he will come to 
this place, if agreeable to me. But I will not interpose my assur- 
ance of his safety, for if he shall come, if my authority is of any 
avail, I will not suffer him to depart alive." There is no reason, 
however, to doubt the genuineness of this letter, which is pre- 
served in the Imperial Library at Paris. And there is nothing in 
it which is not covered by the notorious facts, that Calvin firmly 
believed and openly maintained that Servetus, by his heresy and 
blasphemy, had deserved death, — that it was a good and honour- 
able work to inflict the punishment of death upon him, and 
professed that he was quite willing to aid in bringing about this 
result. Entertaining these views, he acted a manly and straight- 
forward part in giving expression to them. If Calvin had been 
such a monster of cruelty and malignity as he is represented to 
have been b}^ his slanderers, from Bolsec and Castellio in his own 
time, to Audin and Wallace in the present day, he would have 
encouraged Servetus to come to Geneva, and then have got 
him tried and executed. His letter, then, to Farel, is really no 
aggravation of what is otherwise known and unquestionable in 
regard to Calvin's views upon this subject. 

The injustice usually exhibited by Calvin's enemies upon this 
whole matter should just make his friends the more anxious to take 
up no untenable position regarding it, to admit fully and at once 
everything that can be proved as a matter of fact, and to maintain 
no ground which cannot be successfully defended. His enemies 
have little or nothing that is plausible to bring forward, beyond 
what is involved in the general charge of believing and acting on 
the lawfulness of putting heretics and blasphemers to death, except 
what is furnished to them sometimes by injudicious friends of 
the Eeformer — taking up ground that cannot be maintained. 

But while the conduct of Calvin in the case of Servetus must 
be judged of mainly and primarily by the truth or falsehood of 
the doctrine of the lawfulness of putting heretics and blasphemers 
to death, and while every one now concedes that, tried by this 
test, it cannot be defended, it is quite possible that there may be 



318 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

other collateral views of the matter, which may materially affect 
our estimate of the different parties, and tell powerfully in the way 
either of palliation or of aggravation. Indeed, the only fair and 
honest question in regard to the case of Serve tus, now that the 
lawfulness of putting heretics to death has been long abandoned, 
is this — Does Calvin's conduct in the matter furnish evidence that 
he was a bad or cruel man ? Does it prove him to have been in 
any respect worse than the other Reformers, — that is, worse than 
the best men of his age ? This is the only question which is now 
entitled to consideration, and this question, we venture to assert, 
must be answered in the negative by every one who is not perverted 
by hatred of the truth which Calvin taught, by every one who is 
possessed of impartiality and candour. The leading considerations 
which prove that this is the only answer that can be given to the 
question we shall merely state, without enlarging upon them. 

1. The doctrine of the lawfulness and duty of putting heretics 
and blasphemers to death, was then almost universally held, by Pro- 
testants as well as Papists, — by men of unquestionable piety and 
benevolence, if there were any such persons, — and those who were 
zealous for God's truth w r ere then not only willing but anxious to 
act upon this doctrine whenever an opportunity occurred. There 
is no need to produce evidence of this position ; but it may be 
proper to advert here to a statement which seems to contradict it, 
made by Dr Stebbing, the translator of Henry's Life of Calvin, 
and adopted from him by Mr Wallace in his Anti-Trinitarian 
Biography. Dr Stebbing thinks that Henry has gone too far in 
defending Calvin, and in his anxiety to repudiate all concurrence 
in this, he makes the following statement in his preface: — "Henry 
has defended Calvin in the case of Servetus with admirable ability; 
but the translator believes still, as he has ever believed, that when 
men enjoy so large a share of light and wisdom as Calvin possessed, 
they cannot be justified if guilty of persecution, because they 
lived in times when wicked and vulgar minds warred against the 
rights of human conscience." Now this statement obviously and 
necessarily implies, that in Calvin's time it was only " wicked and 
vulgar minds " who countenanced persecution, and that Calvin's 
conduct is indefensible, because he agreed on this point only with 
the wicked and vulgar, and differed from the better and higher 
class of minds among his contemporaries. This is what Dr Steb- 
bing has said. But of course he could not mean .to say this ; for 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 319 

he must have known, if he gave any attention to what he was 
saying, that the statement is unquestionably false. Every one 
knows that in Calvin's time the defence of persecuting principles 
was not confined to the " wicked and vulgar," but was almost 
universal, even among the best and highest minds. It is to be 
presumed that Mr Wallace did not perceive the folly or the false- 
hood of this statement of Dr Stebbing's, when he quoted it with 
so much gusto, and set it forth as a " well-merited censure from 
the pen of one of Calvin's most ardent admirers."* 

2. Servetus was not only a heretic and a blasphemer, but one 
about whom there was everything to provoke and nothing to con- 
ciliate. More than twenty years before his death he had put 
forth views which led Bucer, one of the most moderate of the 
Reformers, to declare that he ought to be torn in pieces. He con- 
tinued thereafter to lead a life of deliberate hypocrisy, living for 
many years in the house of a Popish prelate, conforming outwardly 
to the Church of Rome, while at the same time he embraced 
every safe opportunity of propagating his offensive heresies and 
blasphemies against the most sacred and fundamental doctrines of 
Christianity. He repeatedly denied upon oath all knowledge of 
the books which he had published, and he conducted himself 
during his trial with reckless violence and mendacity. We do 
not mention these things as if they excused or palliated his being 
put to death, but merely as illustrating the unreasonableness and 
unfairness of attempting to represent the case as one of peculiar 
aggravation, or as specially entitled to sympathy. Chaufepi£, 
whose article on Servetus in the fourth volume of his Continua- 
tion of Bayle's Dictionary is perhaps, upon the whole, the best and 
fairest view of the subject that exists, says :— " Unfortunately for 
this great man (Calvin), he is more odious to certain people than 
Servetus is. They cannot resolve to render him the justice 
which no impartial person can refuse to him, without doing an 
injury to his own judgment." 

3. Servetus had been convicted of heresy and blasphemy by 
a Popish tribunal at Vienne, and had been condemned to be 
burned by a slow fire ; and he escaped from prison and came to 
Geneva with that sentence hanging over him. During his trial 
at Geneva the Popish authorities transmitted the sentence they 



Vol. i. p. 446. 



320 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

had pronounced against him, and reclaimed him, that they might 
carry it into execution. It was then put to Servetus, whether he 
would go back to Vienne or go on with his trial at Geneva. He 
preferred to remain where he was ; and there is good reason to 
believe that the determination of the civil authorities at Geneva to 
pronounce and execute upon him a sentence of death, was in some 
measure produced by the fear that the Papists would charge them 
with being indifferent, if not favourable, to heresy, if they spared 
him. There is abundant evidence that this consideration operated 
to some extent as a motive upon the conduct of the Protestant 
churches at the time of the Reformation.* As a specimen of this 
we may refer to Bishop Jewel's " Apology of the Church of Eng- 
land," a work which was approved of by the Convocation, and 
thus clothed with public authority. In the third chapter of the 
Apology, sect. 2, Jewel boasts that Protestants not only detested 
and denounced all the heretics who had been condemned by the 
ancient church, but also that, when any of these heresies broke 
out amongst them, "they seriously and severely coerced the 
broachers of them with lawful and civil punishments." If this 
was distinctly set forth and boasted of as an ordinary rule of pro- 
cedure in opposition to Popish allegations, we cannot doubt that 
the consideration would operate most powerfully in so very pecu- 
liar, and indeed unexampled, a case as that of Servetus, in which 
not only had a Popish tribunal condemned him to the flames, but 
had publicly demanded his person that they might put that sen- 
tence in execution. In these circumstances no Protestant tribunal 
could be expected to do anything else but pronounce a similar 
sentence, unless either the proof of the charge of heresy and blas- 
phemy had failed, or they had believed it to be unlawful to put 
heretics and blasphemers to death. 

4. Although Calvin, after having, notwithstanding extreme 
personal provocation, done everything in his power to convince 
Servetus of his errors, approved of putting him to death as an 
incorrigible heretic and blasphemer, he exerted his influence, but 
without success, to prevent his being burned, and to effect that 
he might be put to death by seme less cruel and offensive process; 
so that to talk, as is often done, of Calvin burning Servetus, is 
simply and literally a falsehood. 



Augusti Corpus Lib. Symb. Diss. Hist., pp. 590-2. 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 321 

5, The Reformers generally, and more especially two of the 
mildest and most moderate of them all, both in their theological 
views and in their general character, — Melancthon representing 
the Lutherans, and Bullinger representing the Zuinglians, — gave 
their full, formal, public approbation to the proceedings which 
took place in Geneva in the case of Servetus. 

6. Archbishop Cranmer exerted all his influence with King 
Edward, and succeeded thereby, though not without great diffi- 
culty, in effecting the burning of two heretics, — one of them a 
woman and the other a foreigner, — whose offences were in every 
respect, and tried by any standard whatever, far less aggravated 
than Servetus' s.* 

As all these six positions are notorious and undeniable, it must 
be quite plain to every one who reflects for a moment on what 
these facts, individually and collectively, involve or imply, that 
the peculiar frequency and the special virulence with which Cal- 
vin's conduct in regard to Servetus has been denounced, indicate, 
on the part of those who have done so, not only an utter want of 
anything like impartiality and fairness, but a bitter dislike, to a 
most able and influential champion of God's truth. 

It might be supposed that most men, knowing these facts, 
would admit that there are many palliations attaching to the death 
of Servetus, and to Calvin's conduct in the matter ; and yet Mr 
Wallace, as we have seen, as if determined to outstrip in the 
virulence of his invective all that had been said by Papists and 
infidels, describes it as being " without one humane or redeeming 
quality to divest it of its criminality or palliate its enormity." 
The ground on which men who are fond of railing at Calvin in 
this style commonly excuse themselves, is an allegation to the 
effect that he was mainly influenced in this matter by personal and 
vindictive feelings, — that, under the influence of these feelings, 
he had been long plotting Servetus' s death, and seeking an oppor- 
tunity of cutting him off, — and that he gave information against 
him to the Popish authorities atVienne, and was thus the cause of 



* Burnet, after narrating (History 
of the Reformation, P. ii. B. i., under 
the year 1549) Cranmer's very pro- 
minent and influential share in bring- 
ing about these two burnings, — the 
one that of an Anabaptist woman, 
the other that of an Arian Dutchman, 



— adds, " One thing was certain, that 
what he did in this matter flowed from 
no cruelty of temper in him, no man 
being further from that black disposi- 
tion of mind ; but it was truly the 
effect of those principles by which he 
governed himself." 



VOL. I. 21 



322 



JOHN CALVIN. 



[Essay VI. 



his being tried and condemned there. These assertions are to a 
large extent utterly destitute of proof ; and in so far as there is 
any appearance of evidence in support of them as matters of fact, 
they furnish no foundation for the conclusions which have been 
based upon them. The general allegation, that Calvin was mainly 
or largely influenced by personal and vindictive feelings towards 
Servetus, is destitute of all proof or even plausibility. There is 
no evidence of it whatever, and there is no occasion whatever to 
have recourse to this theory. All that Calvin ever said or did in 
the case of Servetus, is fully explained by his conviction of the 
lawfulness and duty of putting heretics and blasphemers to death ; 
and by his uncompromising determination to maintain, in every 
way he reckoned lawful, the interests of God's truth, and to dis- 
charge his own obligations, combined with the too prevalent habit 
of the age to indulge in railing and abuse against all who were 
dealt with as opponents. There were very considerable differences 
in character and disposition between Cranmer and Calvin, but it 
is in substance just as true of the latter as of the former, that his 
conduct "was truly the effect of those principles by which he 
governed himself." Calvin, in his last interview with Servetus, 
on the day before his death, solemnly declared that he had never 
sought to resent any personal injuries that had been offered to 
him, — that many years ago he had laboured, at the risk of his own 
life, to bring Servetus back to the truth, — that, notwithstanding 
his want of success, he long continued to correspond with him on 
friendly terms, — that he had omitted no act of kindness towards 
him, — until at last Servetus, exasperated by his expostulations, 
assailed him with downright rage. To this solemn appeal Servetus 
made no answer, and there is no ground whatever to warrant any 
human being to call in question its truth or sincerity. The truth 
is, that there is at least as good evidence that Mr Wallace hates 
Calvin as that Calvin hated Servetus.* 

We have seen some specimens of the rancorous abuse with 
which he assails the Reformer. But we have not exhausted his 



* Armand de la Chapelle, whose 
review of Allwoerden's Historia Mi- 
chaelis Serveti in the Bibliotlieque Rai- 
sonnee for 1728-9, torn. i. and ii., is 
characterized by great ability and 
fairness, thus describes the conduct of 
some of Calvin's accusers in his time, 



and they do not seem to be much im- 
proved yet: — "Je soutiens qu'il n'y 
a que malice noire, et qu'aigre intoler- 
ance dans l'animosite personnelle que 
certaines gens font paroitre contre cet 
illustre Reformateur." — (Bib. Rais., 
torn. i. p. 400.) 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 323 

performances in this way. He assures us that Calvin formed a 
plan for the destruction of Servetus, and that he prosecuted it for 
thirteen years before he succeeded in accomplishing his object, 
— that he " came to the deliberate determination of plotting his 
destruction," — that " he was always on the watch for something 
by which he might criminate Servetus," — that he " was on the 
watch for him, and caused him to be apprehended soon after his 
arrival" in Geneva.* These are statements for which no evidence 
has been or can be produced. They can be regarded in no other 
light than as mere fabrications. Mr Wallace also gives us to 
understand, that in his judgment the conduct of Calvin in this 
matter showed him to be a a man who, under the guise of religion, 
could violate every principle of honour and humanity." f Under 
the guise of religion I We could scarcely have believed it possible 
that any man would have insinuated a doubt of the sincerity of 
Calvin's conviction, that he was doing God service and discharging 
a duty in contributing to bring about the death of Servetus. The 
sincerity and earnestness of this conviction do not, of course, furnish 
any proof that he was right, or supply any materials for defend- 
ing his conduct. Still this conviction is an important feature in 
every case to which it applies, and it ought always to be taken into 
account. We do not believe that Mr Wallace will get much coun- 
tenance, even from Papists and infidels, in his insinuation, that 
Calvin is not entitled to the benefit of it. 

His allegation about "violating every principle of honour and 
humanity," is probably intended to bear special reference to what 
has been charged against Calvin in connection with the informa- 
tion against Servetus given to the Popish authorities at Vienne ; 
and this is, indeed, the only feature of the case, the discussion of 
which is attended with any difficulty. Mr Wallace's statement 
upon the point is this : — 

" Calvin, who was always on the watch for something by which he might 
criminate Servetus, soon gave out that this work" (his last work, the " Chris- 
tianismi Restitutio," which he had got secretly printed without his name at 
Vienne, and the substance of which he had sent to Calvin some years before) 
" was written by him. And availing himself of the assistance of one William 
Trie, a native of Lyons, who was at that time residing at Geneva, he caused 
Servetus to be apprehended and thrown into prison on a charge of heresy. 
Some of the friends and disciples of Calvin have attempted to free him from 



Vol. i. pp. 432-4. f Vol. i. p. 446. 



324 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

this odious imputation, and he has himself represented it as a calumny ; but the 
fact that Servetus was imprisoned at the sole instigation of Calvin is too well 
established to admit of dispute. Abundant proofs of it may be found in the 
accounts of De la Roche, Allwoerden, Mosheim, Bock, and Trechsel."* 

We will advert first to Mr Wallace's references to authorities. 
He says that abundant proofs that Calvin was the author and 
originator of the whole proceedings against Servetus at Vienne, 
may be found in the accounts of De la Roche, Allwoerden, 
Mosheim, Bock, and Trechsel. We have not read Mosheim and 
Trechsel, but we are confident that the proofs to be found in the 
other three authors are not abundant, and are not even sufficient. 
De la Eoche and Allwoerden published before Trie's three letters 
to his friend at Lyons, which Calvin is alleged to have instigated 
and dictated, were given to the public, and therefore were scarcely 
in circumstances to judge fairly on this question. 

De la Roche f does not enter into anything like a full and 
formal investigation of this matter. The main evidence he adduces 
that Calvin was the author or originator of Trie's letters, is a 
statement to that effect made by Servetus himself on his trial, 
coupled with the fact, that in his judgment Calvin's denial did 
pot fully meet the precise charge as laid. Allwoerden, whose 
w T ork is in reality just the first edition of Mosheim's, goes much 
more fully into this matter, and produces additional proofs, though 
they are not very "abundant" or satisfactory. His authorities 
are only Bolsec in his Life of Calvin, and the anonymous author 
of the work entitled, " Contra Libellum Calvini," etc., in reply to 
Calvin's Refutation of the errors of Servetus. Bolsec, indeed, 
says that Calvin wrote to Cardinal Tournon to give information 
against Servetus, — that Trie wrote to many people at Lyons and 
Vienne at the solicitation of Calvin, and that in consequence 
Servetus was put in prison. { But Bolsec's Lives both of Calvin 
and Beza have always been regarded, except by Papists, whose 
church Bolsec had joined before he published them, as infamous 
libels, to which no weight whatever is due. The other work 
referred to has been ascribed to Laelius Socinus and to Castellio ; 
and it is not improbable that both were concerned in the produc- 
tion of it, as is supposed also to have been the case with another 
work bearing upon this subject, and published under the fictitious 



Vol. i. p. 433. f "Bibliotheque Anglaise," torn. ii. 1717. % Bolsec, p. 11. 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 325 

name of Martinus Bellius. The author of this work says, that 
those who had seen Trie's letters to his Popish friend, " think that 
they were written by Calvin, because of the similarity of the style," 
and that they were of a higher order than Trie could have pro- 
duced. This is all the evidence he adduces, and it plainly shows 
that at the time the report rested merely upon conjecture or sus- 
picion. This anonymous and unknown author says also, that 
" there are some who say that Calvin himself wrote to Cardinal 
Tournon," — a statement which shows how thoroughly the whole 
matter was one of mere hearsay. It is proper also to mention, 
that it is this work which contains the report, given, however, 
merely as a hearsay (sunt qui affirmant), that Calvin laughed 
when he saw Servetus carried along to the stake. This report 
even De la Roche, with all his prejudices against Calvin and Cal- 
vinism, denounces as an " execrable calumny," though it is really 
a fair enough specimen of the way in which Calvin has been often 
dealt with. De la Chapelle very happily ridiculed the manifest 
and palpable insufficiency of this evidence, in this way : — " The 
cotemporary enemies of Calvin only suspected that he was the 
author of the letter, and behold now-a-days, 170 years after the 
event, De la Roche and Allwoerden are quite certain of it. Per- 
haps in another 100 years, it will be found out that it was Calvin 
himself who carried the letter to Lyons."* 

But Trie's three letters have since been published, and may be 
expected to throw some light upon this subject. They were pro- 
cured from Yienne, and published by Artigny in 1749, and they 
have since been commented upon by Mosheim, Bock, and many 
others. Bock is one of those referred to by Mr Wallace, as 
exhibiting " abundant proofs" that Calvin employed Trie to effect 
the apprehension of Servetus at Vienne. But the truth is, that 
Bock, though strongly prejudiced against Calvin, and though un- 
fair enough to allege that he was somewhat influenced by personal 
and vindictive feelings in this matter, did not profess to produce 
" abundant proofs" of the point now under consideration ; nay, he 
expressly admits that it could not be proved, though he was strongly 
inclined to believe it. The whole of what he says upon the sub- 
ject is this: — "An. Gul. Trie homo, indoctus, proprio motu an 
Calvini instinctu et consilio hoc fecerit, certo quidem statui nequit 



'Bibl. Rais.," torn. i. p. 390. 



326 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

non tamen vanse videntur conjectures hanc illi dictasse epistolam, 
qua Servetus tanquam hseretiens exurendus, accusabatur." # We 
accept Bock's concession that there is no proof but only conjec- 
tures, but we do not admit that the conjectures are possessed of 
any real weight or probability, Mr Wallace could easily have 
found room, if he had chosen, for a summary of the " abundant 
proofs" of which he boasts. But it was more convenient just to 
make a flourish by a reference to Bock and other names, whose 
works few were likely to examine. 

Trie's letters not only afford no evidence, but do not even 
furnish any plausible ground of suspicion, that Calvin was in 
any way connected with, or cognizant of, the origin of this 
matter, — that is, that it was at his instigation that Trie conveyed 
information to his Popish friend about Servetus, and the book 
which he had recently published. So far as appears from the 
correspondence, Trie's statement about Servetus and his book 
seems to have come forth quite spontaneously, without being sug- 
gested or instigated by any one. It has every appearance of 
having come up quite naturally and easily, in the course of cor- 
respondence with a friend, who was urging him to return to the 
Church of Rome, on the ground of the unity and soundness of 
doctrine that prevailed there, as contrasted with the varieties and 
heresies that were found among Protestants. This naturally and 
obviously led Trie, as it would have led any one in similar circum- 
stances who happened to be cognizant of Servetus and his book, 
to tell his friend of what had been going on of late, in the way of 
heresy, in his own neighbourhood, and in a place where Popish 
authorities had entire control. In short, there is no ground to 
believe, or even to suspect, that Calvin was connected with origi- 
nating or instigating the proceeding, which ultimately led to Ser- 
vetus's apprehension by the Popish authorities at Vienne. If men 
are determined to put the worst possible construction upon every- 
thing relating to Calvin, they may have some suspicion that he 
instigated Trie to write to Vienne about Servetus. But Mr 
Wallace's " abundant proofs" can really be regarded in no other 
light than as downright audacity. 

And then it must not be forgotten, that we have from Calvin 
himself what must in all fairness be regarded as a denial of this 






* Historia Anti-trinitariorum, torn. ii. p. 355. 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 327 

charge. In his Refutation of the errors of Servetus, he intimates 
that it had been alleged against him, that it was through his 
agency (mea opera) that Servetus had been seized at Vienne. He 
scouted the idea as absurd and preposterous, as if he had been in 
friendly correspondence with the Popish authorities ; and then he 
concludes with saying, that if the allegation were true, he would 
not think of denying it, for he would not reckon it at all dishonour- 
able to him, as he had never concealed that it was through his 
agency that Servetus had been seized and brought to trial at 
Geneva. Calvin evidently saw no material difference in point of 
principle, between doing what was practicable and necessary to 
bring him to trial at Vienne, and doing what was requisite with 
the same view at Geneva. He certainly could not mean by this 
statement to deny what he did do in the way of furnishing mate- 
rials to be iised as evidence against Servetus at Vienne ; for what 
he had done in this respect was quite well known, and was dis- 
tinctly mentioned in the formal sentence of the Popish authorities, 
which had been publicly produced in the subsequent trial. He 
never could have thought of denying this, and therefore he must 
have meant merely to deny that he was the author or originator 
of the proceedings ; in other words, to deny that he had written 
himself, or that he had instigated Trie to write, although even of 
this he indicates that he would not have been ashamed if it had 
been true. 

This leads us to advert to what it was that Calvin did in .con- 
nection with the proceedings against Servetus at Vienne; and this 
topic may be properly connected with a statement of Principal 
Tulloch's on this subject. Dr Tulloch, as might be expected, 
seems disposed to press the more unfavourable views of this 
transaction. He describes it as a " great crime," — he speaks of 
" the undying disgrace which, under all explanations, must for 
ever attach to the event," — and assures us that " the act must 
bear its own doom and disgrace for ever."* Of his more specific 
statements, the only one to which we think it needful to advert 
is the following : — 

" The special blame of Calvin in the whole matter is very much dependent 
upon the view we take of his previous relation to the accusation and trial of 
Servetus by the Inquisition at Vienne. If the evidence, of which Dyer has 



* Leaders of the Reformation, pp. 101, 138, 144. 



328 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

made the most, were perfectly conclusive, that the Reformer, through a 
creature of his own of the name of Trie, was really the instigator, from the 
beginning, of the proceedings against Servetus, — that from Geneva, in short, 
he schemed, with deep-laid purpose, the ruin of the latter, who was then 
quietly prosecuting his profession at Vienne, — and, from MSS. that had 
privately come into his possession, furnished the Inquisition with evidence 
of the heretic's opinions, — if we were compelled to believe all this, then the 
atrocity of Calvin's conduct would stand unrelieved by the sympathy of his 
fellow-reformers, and would not only not admit of defence, but would present 
one of the blackest pictures of treachery that even the history of religion dis- 
closes. The evidence does not seem satisfactory, although it is not without 
certain features of suspicion. There can be no doubt, however, that Calvin 
was so far privy, through Trie, to the proceedings of the Inquisition, and that 
he heartily approved of them."* 

This is a curious and significant passage, and seems to indicate 
that Dr Tulloch occupies the position of one who is "willing to 
wound, but yet afraid to strike." Dyer's Life of Calvin, the 
authority here referred to by Dr Tulloch, was published in 1850, 
and is got up with considerable care and skill. Its general object 
manifestly is, to check and counteract the tendency to think more 
favourably of Calvin, which had grown up in the community, in 
connection with the labours of the Calvin Translation Society 
and other causes. It was this too, probably, that called forth the 
special virulence of Mr Wallace, whose Anti-Trinitarian Bio- 
graphy was published in the same year. But Mr Dyer goes 
about his work much more cautiously than Mr Wallace. He 
abstains generally from violent invective and gross misrepresenta- 
tion, and labours to convey an unfavourable impression by insinua- 
tion, supported by an elaborate and sustained course of special 
pleading in the style of an Old Bailey practitioner, combined with 
a considerable show of moderation and fairness. The reference 
which Dr Tulloch, in the passage we have quoted, makes to Mr 
Dyer, is fitted to convey the impression, that that author goes as 
far as Mr Wallace in ascribing the whole proceedings connected 
with Servetus's apprehension at Vienne to Calvin's agency or 
instigation. But this is not the case. Mr Dyer was too cautious 
to assert this. He saw and admitted that there is no evidence 
that Calvin had anything to do with the origination of the matter, 
— that is, no evidence that Trie's first letter was written at his 
instigation or with his cognizance. 



Pp. 138-9. 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 329 

"The Abbe d'Artigny goes farther than the evidence warrants, in positively 
asserting that Trie's letter was written at Calvin's dictation, and in calling it 
Calvin's letter in the name of Trie. It is just possible that Trie may have written 
it without Calvin's knowledge ; and the latter is therefore entitled to the bene- 
fit of the doubt. He cannot be absolutely proved to have taken the first step in 
delivering Servetus into the fangs of the Roman Catholic Inquisition ; but what 
we shall now have to relate will show that he at least ai,ded and abetted it."* 

It is true, as Dr Tulloch says, that Mr Dyer has made the 
most of the evidence about Calvin aiding and abetting in the 
matter. But there is really no mystery or uncertainty about this. 
What Calvin did in this respect is well known and quite ascer- 
tained, though we do not deny that there is room for a difference of 
opinion, or rather of impression, as to how far it can be thoroughly 
defended. 

The principal sentence in the quotation from Dr Tulloch is a 
piece of rhetorical declamation, and is characterized by the inac- 
curacy and exaggeration which usually attach to such displays. 
It is not alleged by Mr Dyer, or indeed even by Mr Wallace, 
that Calvin's conduct corresponded with the description which 
Dr Tulloch has here pictured of it; and yet his statement plainly 
implies that Mr Dyer has asserted all this to be true of Calvin, 
has undertaken to prove it, and has produced evidence in support 
of it, which, though not, in Dr Tulloch's judgment, sufficient to 
establish it, is not destitute of weight. We cannot understand 
what could have tempted Dr Tulloch to dash off such an inflated 
and exaggerated description of Calvin's conduct, and to ascribe 
it, without warrant, to the cold and cautious Mr Dyer. He surely 
could not expect that his assertion, that Mr Dyer had undertaken 
to prove all this, and thought that he had proved it, would be 
sufficient to induce some people to believe it or to regard it as 
probable, even though it " would present one of the blackest 
pictures of treachery that even the history of religion discloses." 

The first charge in this indictment against Calvin, given hypo- 
thetically, so far as Dr Tulloch is concerned, but alleged by him 
to be adduced and believed by Mr Dyer, is, that " the Reformer, 
through a creature of his own of the name of Trie, was really the 
instigator, from the beginning, of the proceedings against Ser- 
vetus." Now Mr Dyer, as we have seen, expressly admits that 
this position cannot be proved, and Calvin himself has denied it, 



Dyer's Life of John Calvin, p. 314. 



330 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

while declaring at the same time that he would not have been 
ashamed to acknowledge it if it had been true. The second 
charge is merely a rhetorical expansion and amplification of the 
first, with a fine touch added in the end by Dr Tulloch's own 
hand, without any countenance from his authority, " that from 
Geneva he schemed, with deep-laid purpose, the ruin of the latter, 
who was then quietly prosecuting his profession (as a physician) at 
Vienne" The clause which we have put in italics is fitted, and to 
all appearance was intended, to convey the impression, that Ser- 
vetus had abandoned the work of propagating heresy and blas- 
phemy, in which he had been engaged more or less, occasionally, 
for about a quarter of a century, — that he had retired from the 
field of theology, and was quietly occupied with the practice of 
medicine, giving no ground of offence to any one, when Calvin 
devised and executed a plot for bringing him to trial and death. 
Now all this is palpably inconsistent with the best known and most 
fundamental facts of the case. Every one knows, that the whole 
proceedings against Servetus, both at Vienne and at Geneva, 
originated in, and were founded on, the fact of his having just 
succeeded in getting secretly printed at Yienne, a large edition of 
his work entitled " Christianismi Restitutio," in which all his old 
heresies and blasphemies were reproduced. Servetus had taken 
every precaution to guard against this work being known in his 
own neighbourhood, but a large number of copies had been sent 
to Frankfort and other places for sale, and one copy at least had 
reached Geneva. Indeed, the substance of the information which 
Trie's first letter conveyed to his Popish friend at Lyons was just 
this, that this book had recently been produced and printed in his 
neighbourhood, and that Servetus was the author and Arnoullet 
the printer of it. So far is Mr Dyer from giving any countenance, 
as Dr Tulloch insinuates, to this rhetorical flourish, about Servetus 
" quietly prosecuting his profession at Vienne," that for a purpose 
of his own — intending to damage Calvin in another way — he 
calls special attention to the consideration, that Servetus's printing 
his book at this time " was an overt act, and furnished something 
tangible to the Roman Catholic authorities, who would have 
looked with suspicion on mere manuscript evidence, furnished by 
a man whom they considered to be a great heretic himself."* 



* P. 362. 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 331 

This leads us to advert to the third and last charge in the 
indictment, viz. that " from MSS. that had privately come into 
his possession, he furnished the Inquisition with evidence of the 
heretic's opinions." This charge, as here stated, is not put quite 
accurately, but we admit that in substance it is not only adduced 
but established by Mr Dyer. He puts it thus : — " But this (that 
is, the admission that there is no evidence that Trie's first letter 
was written with Calvin's knowledge) does not clear him from the 
charge of having furnished the evidence by which alone Trie's de- 
nunciation could be rendered effectual ; and of thus having made 
himself a partaker in whatever guilt attaches to such an act." # 

Calvin did not perceive or admit that there was any guilt 
attaching either to Trie's conduct or to his own in this matter ; 
but he certainly did the substance of what is here ascribed to him. 
The facts are these. Trie, in his first letter to his Popish friend, 
— in which he told him of the publication of Servetus's work, and 
gave the name of the author and printer, — enclosed also the first 
leaf of the book. His friend communicated this to the Popish 
authorities, who made some investigation into the case. But so 
effectual had been the precautions taken by Servetus to secure 
secrecy, that they could get hold of nothing tangible. Trie's 
friend was in consequence requested to write to him again, and 
to urge him to furnish, if possible, any additional materials that 
might throw light upon the matter. In answer to this application, 
Trie sent about twenty letters, which, a good many years before, 
Servetus had addressed to Calvin, and which were to be used, not 
as Dr Tulloch says, " as evidence of the heretic's opinions," but 
as materials for establishing his identity. Trie's account of the 
way in which he procured the letters is this, and it is all we know 
of Calvin's procedure in this matter :f — 

" But I must confess that I have had great trouble to get what I send you 
from Mr Calvin. Not that he is unwilling that such execrable blasphemies 
should be punished ; but that it seems to him to be his duty, as -he does not 
wield the sword of justice, to refute heresy by his doctrines, rather than to 
pursue it by such methods. I have, however, importuned him so much, 
representing to him that I should incur the reproach of levity, if he did not 
help me, that he has at last consented to hand over what I send." 

Calvin had great hesitation in giving up these letters to be 



P. 361. f Dyer, p. 316. 



332 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

employed for this purpose, and it would have been better, perhaps, 
if he had declined to comply with the application. Not that the 
matter is one of any material importance, or that his conduct in 
this affair can affect injuriously his general character in the esti- 
mation of intelligent and impartial men ; but that it is fitted to 
give a handle to enemies, and has been regarded with somewhat 
different feelings, even among those whose prepossessions are all in 
his favour. Calvin had no doubt as to the lawfulness of his giving 
up these letters for the purpose of establishing Servetus's identity. 
His views as to the way in which heretics ought to be dealt with, 
and the responsibility which, in consequence, he was quite willing 
to incur in such cases, prevented any doubt as to the warrantable- 
ness of the step proposed. His hesitation seems to have turned 
only on its becomingness or congruity, — on the propriety of a man 
in his position taking, in the circumstances, an active part in a 
criminal process, which might result in the shedding of blood. 
How far Calvin's conduct in this matter should be regarded as a 
violation of the confidence that ought to attach to friendly inter- 
course, must depend very much upon the circumstances in which 
the correspondence was begun, and carried on, and ended ; and 
of all this we know nothing, and cannot judge. Taking even the 
most unfavourable view which any reasonable man can form of 
the transaction, there is really nothing in it — apart, of course, from 
its assuming or implying the lawfulness of putting heretics to 
death — that can be considered very heinous, or that is fitted to 
create any strong prejudice against Calvin's general character. 
There is not one of the leading Reformers against whom more 
serious charges than this cannot be established. 

It is satisfactory to know, that although these letters to Calvin 
are mentioned among the pieces justificatives in the sentence pro- 
nounced upon Servetus by the Popish authorities, they had got, 
before the sentence was passed, direct and conclusive evidence 
from other sources, to prove, in the face of his deliberate perjury, 
that he was Servetus, — -though he had lived for thirteen years in 
Vienne under a different name, — and that he had printed and 
published the heretical and blasphemous book which had been 
ascribed to him. Dyer has given a full, and upon the whole a 
fair, view of this branch of the case.* 



* Pp. 319-325. 



Essay VI.] 



JOHN CALVIN. 



333 



We did not intend to dwell so long on this matter of Servetus. 
But since so much has been put forth of late years, by Wallace 
and Dyer, by Stebbing and Tulloch, fitted to convey erroneous 
and unfair impressions upon some features of the case, we do not 
regret that we have been led to enlarge somewhat upon it, although 
confining ourselves strictly to what seemed to require explanation.* 

The impression which the more temperate and reasonable 
opponents of Calvin's views chiefly labour to produce with re- 
spect to his character is this, — that he was a proud and presump- 
tuous speculator upon divine things, very anxious to be wise above 
what is written, and ever disposed to indulge his own reasonings 
upon the deepest mysteries of religion, instead of seeking humbly 
and carefully to follow the guidance of God's word, without 
pressing any further than it led him. Now it is perhaps not very 
unnatural that men who have never read Calvin s writings, and 
who are decidedly and zealously opposed to his doctrines, may 
have insensibly formed to themselves some such conception of his 
general character and spirit, or may have very readily believed 
all this when they saw it asserted by others. This notion, how- 
ever, has not only no foundation to rest upon, but it is contra- 
dicted by the whole spirit that breathes through the writings of 
Calvin. We are not at present speaking of the actual truth of 
his doctrines, but merely of the general spirit in which his exami- 
nation of God's word and his investigation of divine truth is con- 
ducted ; and upon this point we have no hesitation in saying, that 
there is nothing which is more strikingly and palpably charac- 
teristic of the general spirit in which Calvin ordinarily conducts 
his investigations into divine truth, and his speculations on the 
mysteries of religion, than his profound reverence for the word 
of God, the caution and sobriety with which he advances, and his 



* We have already intimated that 
we consider the Art. " Servetus," in 
the fourth volume of Chauffepie's 
" Nouveau Dictionnaire," or Continua- 
tion of Bayle, as giving the best and 
fairest view of the whole case. The 
fullest collection of the materials 
bearing upon his trial at Geneva is to 
be found in Eilliet's work, entitled 
" Relation de Proces Criminel," etc., 
published in 1844 ; or, still better, in a 
translation of this work, published at 



Edinburgh in 1846, under the title 
" Calvin and Servetus," with an ex- 
cellent Introduction, consisting chiefly 
of a fine sketch of Calvin's life by 
the Eev. Dr Tweedie, who has also 
contributed a valuable article to 
the North British Review, vol. xiii., 
exhibiting a very successful appre- 
ciation of Calvin himself, and of his 
modern biographers, Henry, Dyer, 
and Audin. 



334 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VL 

perfect readiness at all times to lay aside or abandon every state- 
ment, or even mode of expression, that did not clearly appear to 
him to have the sanction of the sacred Scriptures. And we think 
it quite impossible for any man of fairness and candour to read 
Calvin's writings without being constrained to feel that this was 
the state of mind and the general spirit which he at least intended 
and laboured to cherish and to manifest. Men of general fairness 
and candour may continue, after reading Calvin's writings, to 
think that he has brought out from the sacred Scriptures, doc- 
trines upon some of the deeper mysteries of religion which are 
not taught there ; and some may even be disposed to allege that, 
misled by the deceitfulness of the human heart, he did not always 
know what manner of spirit he was of. But no person, we think, 
of fairness and discernment can fail to see and admit, that he had 
laid it down as a rule to himself, to follow humbly, implicitly, 
and reverentially the guidance of God's word, that he carefully 
laboured to act upon this rule, and honestly believed that he had 
succeeded in doing so. 

From the nature of the case, it is not easy to prove this by an 
adduction of evidence. But there are one or two points of a 
pretty definite description, which may be fairly regarded as con- 
firming it. It was not Calvin's practice to attempt to strain the 
particular statements of Scripture, in order to bring out more 
abundant evidence of doctrines which he believed to be true. On 
the contrary, he has incurred the suspicion of some of the more 
unintelligent friends of truth, by occasionally admitting that a 
particular text gave no support to a sound doctrine, in support of 
which it was commonly adduced. He showed no disposition, in 
general, to sanction the use of unscriptural phrases and statements 
in the exposition of scriptural doctrines ; and it has been thought 
that, in some cases, — as in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity for 
instance, — Calvin, disgusted with the unwarranted and presump- 
tuous speculations of the schoolmen upon this subject, even carried 
to an extreme his anxiety to adhere to mere scriptural terms and 
statements in the exposition of this mystery. Now, whether he 
was right or wrong in the particular cases to which these observa- 
tions apply, his conduct in this respect indicates a state of mind, a 
general spirit, and a habit of procedure, very different from what 
are often ascribed to him, and may be fairly regarded as affording 
evidence that the great object of his desires and aims was just to 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 335 

ascertain and bring out truly and accurately the mind of God in 
His word; to submit his understanding and his opinions wholly 
to the control of the inspired standard ; to go as far as Scripture 
led him, and no farther, in the exposition of divine mysteries. 
Whether he has in every instance succeeded in this object which 
he proposed to himself, is, of course, a different question ; but we 
confess we do not know where to find a finer model, in general, 
of the spirit in which the examination of God's word and the 
investigation of divine truth ought to be conducted, than in the 
writings of Calvin ; and we are persuaded also, that the more 
fully men imbibe his general spirit in this respect, and faithfully 
act upon it, — a spirit which will lead them equally to go without 
fear or hesitation as far as Scripture goes, and to stop without 
reluctance where Scripture stops, — the more firmly will they be 
convinced that, the great doctrines with which Calvin's name is 
commonly associated are indeed the very truth of God, and do 
most fully show forth the perfections of Him " by whom are all 
things, and for whom are all things." 

We do not mean to attempt anything like theological dis- 
cussion ; but we would like to make a few observations on Cal- 
vin's historical position, viewed in relation both to the system 
of doctrine usually called by his name, and to his principles with 
respect to the worship and government of the church. The sum 
and substance of what Calvin aimed at, and to some extent 
effected, was to throw the church back, for the cure of the evils 
by which she was polluted and disgraced at the era of the Refor- 
mation, upon the Augustinianism (or Calvinism) in doctrine, and 
the Presbyterianism in worship and government, which he believed 
to be taught in the New Testament. He of course adopted these 
views, because he believed that the word of God required this. 
On the scriptural evidence of his views we are not called upon at 
present to enter. We can merely advert to one or two features 
of the aspects which they present historically, especially when 
contemplated in their bearing upon the condition to which the 
church had sunk at the time when the Reformation commenced. 
Doctrine (viewed more especially as comprehending the exposition 
of the way of life, or the method of the salvation of sinful men), 
worship, and government, — in short, everything about the church 
or professedly Christian society, had fallen into a state of gross 
corruption. There might be difficulties, from want of materials, 



336 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

in pointing out precisely at what times particular corruptions in 
doctrine, worship, and government were invented and introduced. 
But it might be supposed that no one could fail to see and acknow- 
ledge, that the church of the fifteenth century, viewed both in its 
Eastern and Western branches, — though it is with the latter that 
we have more immediately to do, — was very different in all im- 
portant respects from the church of the first century, as brought 
before us in the writings of the inspired apostles. The system, 
however, which had grown up, and which overspread the church 
in the fifteenth century, was too firmly rooted in men's passions, 
prejudices, and selfish interests, to admit of the light of truth, as 
to what the church should be, being easily let in. The Reforma- 
tion of the sixteenth century became, in consequence, a severe and 
protracted struggle, requiring and giving scope for the highest 
powers and qualities on both sides, both in choosing the ground 
to be taken, and in keeping or maintaining it. And it is here 
that the pre-eminent grandeur and majesty of Calvin shine forth. 
A profound and penetrating survey of the existing condition and 
of the past history of the church, combined with the study of the 
word of God, in leading him to see, that the only thorough remedy, 
the only effectual cure, for the deplorable state of matters that 
now prevailed, — the only process that would go to the root of the 
existing evils and produce a real and permanent reformation, was 
to reject all palliatives and half measures, and to fall back upon 
the thoroughness and simplicity of what was taught and sanc- 
tioned by our Lord and His apostles. 

Perhaps the one most indispensable thing in order to the re- 
storation of true Christianity in the world, was the bringing out 
from the sacred Scriptures of the whole doctrine of the Apostle 
Paul in regard to the justification of sinners, and this was the 
special work which God qualified and enabled Luther to effect. 
The history of this doctrine of justification is remarkable. In 
consequence of the particularly full and formal exposition of it 
which the Apostle Paul was guided by the Spirit to put on record 
in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, Satan seems to have 
felt the necessity of carrying on his efforts to corrupt it in an in- 
direct and insidious way, — of proceeding by sapping and mining, 
rather than by open assault. Accordingly, there was scarcely 
anything like direct and formal controversy on the subject of 
justification from the time of Paul to that of Luther. But yet 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 337 

the true doctrine of Scripture on the subject had been very 
thoroughly corrupted. All that is taught in Scripture in regard 
to it had been thrown into the background and explained away, 
without being directly and explicitly denied. Notions of an 
adverse tendency had been introduced, diffused, and mixed up 
with the general series of ecclesiastical arrangements, connected 
especially with the efficacy of the sacraments, the conditions and 
merits of good works, and the interposition of other creatures in 
procuring the favour of God. By these processes, quietly and in- 
sidiously carried on, the doctrine of justification had been greatly 
corrupted in the church even before Augustine's time, and he 
did nothing to check the progress of corruption, or to introduce 
sounder views upon this important subject. Indeed, his own 
views upon it always continued confused and to some extent erro- 
neous. When Luther was honoured to bring out fully the true 
scriptural doctrine of justification, which had been concealed and 
buried so long, the Church of Rome rejected it, while all Pro- 
testant churches received it. Luther applied very fully the true 
scriptural doctrine of justification to all the corruptions of the 
Papal system which were directly connected with it, but he did 
not do much in the way of connecting the doctrine of justification 
with the other great doctrines of the Christian system. It was 
reserved for the comprehensive master-mind of Calvin to connect 
and combine the Scripture doctrine of justification as taught by 
Luther, with the large mass of important scriptural truth set 
forth in the writings of Augustine. And this combination of 
Lutheranism and Augustinianism is just Calvinism, which is thus 
the fullest, most complete, and comprehensive exposition of the 
whole scheme of Christian doctrine. It went to the root of the 
prevailing corruption of Christian truth, and overturned it from 
the foundation. 

The grand heresy, which might be said to have overspread 
the church for many centuries, was in substance this, — that the 
salvation of sinful men, in so far as they might need salvation, 
was to be ascribed, not to the one true God, the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost, but to men themselves and to what they 
could do, or to what could be done for them by their fellow-men 
and other creatures. This, more or less fully developed, was the 
great heresy which lay under the whole elaborate externalism of 
the mediaeval and Romish religion. Almost everything that is dis- 

VOL. I. 22 



338 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

tinctive, either in the specific tenets and practices, or in the more 
general features and tendencies, of the full-blown Popery with 
which the Reformers had to contend, might be traced back, more 
or less directly, to this great principle ; while, on the other hand, 
almost all the particular features of the system tended to deepen 
and strengthen in men's minds the comprehensive heresy in which 
they had their root and origin. Calvin saw that the only effectual 
way of dealing with this great perversion of the way of salvation, 
— so well fitted to lead men to build upon a false foundation their 
hopes of heaven, — the only way to overturn it root and branch, to 
demolish at once the whole height of the superstructure and the 
whole depth of the foundation, — was to bring out fully and de- 
finitely the whole doctrine of Scripture concerning the place held 
in the salvation of sinners by the Father, by the Son, and by the 
Holy Ghost. He made it his great object to bring out and to 
embody the whole doctrine of Scripture upon these subjects, and 
accordingly Calvinism is just a full exposition and development of 
the sum and substance of what is represented in Scripture as done 
for the salvation of sinners by the three persons of the Godhead. 
It represents the Father as arranging, in accordance with all the 
perfections of His nature and all the principles of His moral govern- 
ment, and at the same time with due regard to the actual 
capacities and obligations of men, the whole provisions of the 
scheme of redemption, choosing some men to grace and glory, and 
sending His Son to seek and to save them. It represents the Son 
as assuming human nature, and suffering and dying as the Surety 
and Substitute of His chosen people, — of those whom the Father 
had given Him in covenant, — of an innumerable multitude out of 
every kindred and nation and tongue, — as bearing their sins in 
His own body, and bearing them away, — as doing and bearing 
everything necessary for securing their eternal salvation. It 
represents the Holy Spirit as taking of the things of Christ and 
showing them to men's souls, as taking up His abode in all whom 
Christ redeemed with His precious blood, effectually and infallibly 
determining them to faith and holiness; and thus applying the 
blessings of redemption to all for whom Christ purchased them, 
and finally preparing them fully for the inheritance of the saints. 
These are in substance the views given us in Scripture of the way 
in which sinners of the human race are saved. They are views 
which, as experience fully proves, are most offensive to the natural 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 339 

tendencies and inclinations of men's hearts; and plainly as they 
are taught in Scripture, there is a constant and powerful disposi- 
tion — especially when true religion is in a low or languishing con- 
dition — to reject them or explain them away, and to substitute in 
their room notions which, more or less directly, exclude or contra- 
dict them. They certainly had been thoroughly excluded from the 
practical teaching, and from the whole plans and arrangements of 
the church, at the period of the Reformation ; while it is true, on 
the other hand, — and it is this with which at present we have more 
immediately to do, — that these views, and these alone, overturn from 
the foundation the whole system of notions which then generally 
prevailed, and which so fearfully perverted the way of salvation. 
"We believe that it is impossible to bring out accurately, fully, 
and definitely, the sum and substance of what is taught in Scrip- 
ture concerning the place which the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost hold in the salvation of sinners, without taking up Cal- 
vinistic ground, — without being in a manner necessitated to assert 
the fundamental principles of the Calvinistic system of theology. 
It is, we believe, impossible otherwise to do full justice, and to 
give full effect to what Scripture teaches concerning the sovereign 
supremacy of the Father in determining the everlasting destiny of 
His creatures, — concerning the death and righteousness of Christ, 
as of infinite worth and value, and as infallibly efficacious for 
securing all the great objects to which they are directed, — and con- 
cerning the agency of the Holy Spirit in certainly and infallibly 
uniting to Christ through faith all whom the Father had given to 
Him, and preserving them in safety unto His eternal kingdom. 
Those who reject or put aside the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism 
can, we think, be shown to be practically, and by fair construction, 
withholding from God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
more or less of the place and influence which the Scripture assigns 
to them in the salvation of sinners ; and to be giving to men them- 
selves, or at least to creatures, a share in effecting their salvation 
which the Scripture does not sanction. And when Calvinistic 
principles are rejected or thrown into the background, not only 
is something, more or less, of necessity taken from the Creator 
and assigned to the creature, but an opening is made — an oppor- 
tunity is left — for carrying on this process of transferring to man 
what belongs to God to almost any extent, until the scriptural 
method of salvation is wholly set aside or overturned. 



340 



JOHN CALVIN. 



[Essay VI. 



Men who profess to derive their opinions in any sense from 
the sacred Scriptures, must be substantially — whether they will 
or not, and whether they are aware of it or not — Socinians, 
or Arminians, or Calvinists. The distinctive characteristic of 
Socinianism is, that it virtually invests men with the power of 
saving themselves, of doing everything that is needful for effecting 
their own salvation.* Arminianism virtually divides the work of 
saving men between God and men, and is more or less Pelagian 
according to the comparative share and influence which it assigns 
to the Creator and the creature respectively. Calvinism, and that 
alone, gives to God the whole honour and glory of saving sinners, 
— making men, while upheld and sustained in the possession and 
exercise of all that is necessary for moral agency, the unworthy 
and helpless recipients at God's hand of all spiritual blessings. 
Calvinism not only withholds, in point of fact, from men, any share 
in the work of effecting their own salvation, and ascribes this 
wholly to God; but when rightly understood and faithfully applied, 
it prevents the possibility of any such perversion of the gospel 
scheme of redemption, of any such partition of the work of men's 
salvation. And it is upon this ground that it was so thoroughly 
adapted, not only to overturn from the foundation the whole 
system of destructive heresy that had overspread the church at the 
time of the Reformation, but to prevent, in so far as it might be 
adopted and carried out, the possibility of the reintroduction of such 
a dangerous perversion of scriptural principles and arrangements. 

Popery, if we view it in relation to the method of salvation, 
and have respect more to its general spirit and tendency than to 
its specific tenets, may be said to belong to the head of Arminian- 
ism. Papists concur with the Arminians in admitting the divinity 
and atonement of Christ and the agency of the Spirit ; but they 
concur with them also in not giving to the Son and the Spirit the 
commanding and determining position and influence in the salva- 
tion of sinners which the Scripture assigns to them. Popery thus 
realizes the general idea above indicated of Arminianism, viz. that 
it divides the work of saving sinners between God and sinners 
themselves. What may be called the Arminianism of Popery — in 
a sense which will be easily understood from the explanation that 



* Coleridge tells us of a friend of 
his, " a stern humorist," who bound 
up a number of Unitarian tracts into 



a volume, and titled it upon the back, 
" Salvation made easy; or, Every man 
his own redeemer." 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 341 

has now been given — was, before the Reformation, of a very 
Pelagian cast, — that is, the work of saving sinners was practically 
taken almost entirely from the Creator and assigned to the creature ; 
— not, indeed, that men in general were represented, according to 
the Socinian view, as able to save themselves, but, what is the 
special peculiarity of Popery in regard to this subject, men were 
represented as on the one hand able to do a good deal for saving 
themselves, and then as dependent for the remainder, not merely 
upon the Saviour and the Spirit, but also upon fellow-men and 
fellow-creatures, upon saints and angels. And for this complicated 
system of antiscriptural perversion of the way of salvation, the 
only effectual cure, the only radical remedy, was the great Cal- 
vinistic principle, which distinctly, consistently, and unequivocally 
ascribes the whole salvation of sinners, from first to last, to the 
grace and the power of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost. 

This perversion of the way of salvation was most congenial to 
man's natural inclinations and tendencies. Everything had been 
done which human and Satanic skill could devise, to give it a 
commanding influence over the whole current of men's thoughts 
and feelings. It was firmly established over the whole of Chris- 
tendom at the Reformation; and if it were to be dealt with at all, 
it would require the strongest appliances — the most powerful and 
thoroughgoing influences — to counteract it, to drive it out and to 
keep it out. And this was what Calvinism, and Calvinism alone, 
— looking to the natural fitness of things, the ordinary operation 
of means, — was adequate to effect. Calvin derived his system of 
doctrine from the study of the sacred Scriptures, accompanied by 
the teaching of the Divine Spirit. But there is nothing in the 
fullest recognition of this that should prevent us — especially when 
we are comparing Calvin with the other Reformers who enjoyed 
the same privileges — from noticing and admiring the grasp and 
reach of intellect, the discernment and sagacity, which God had 
given to Calvin in such large measure, and which fitted him so 
peculiarly for the station and the work that were assigned to him. 
And this view of the admirable suitableness of Calvinism to go to 
the root of the evils that polluted the church and endangered the 
souls of men at the time of the Reformation, is confirmed by the 
consideration, that all subsequent deviations from Calvinism in the 
Protestant churches — whether leading in the direction of rational- 



342 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

ism or traditionalism, whether pointing towards Socinianism or 
Popery — have tended to bring back, in some form or degree, the 
great ante-Reformation heresy, — the great heresy, indeed, of all 
times, — that of taking the work of men's salvation from the 
Creator and assigning it to the creature. 

With respect to Calvin's views in regard to the worship and 
government of the church, we had an opportunity, in discussing 
Principal Tulloch's " Leaders of the Reformation," to state briefly 
what they were, and to point out their magnitude and importance, 
as throwing a flood of light upon the whole subject to which they 
relate. His great principle of the unlawfulness of introducing 
anything into the worship and government of the church without 
positive scriptural sanction, evidently went to the root of the 
matter, and swept away at once the whole mass of sacramentalism 
and ceremonialism, of ritualism and hierarchism, which had grown 
up between the apostolic age and the Reformation, which polluted 
and degraded the worship of God, and which, in themselves and 
in their connection with unsound views on the subject of justifica- 
tion, were exerting so injurious an influence on men's spiritual 
welfare. Any other principle, or rule, or standard that could 
have been applied to this whole subject, must have been defective 
and inadequate, and must have left at least the root of the evil 
still subsisting, to be a source of continued and growing mischief. 
The fair and full application of Calvin's great principle, would at 
once have swept away the whole mass of corruption and abuse 
wdiich had been growing up for 1400 years ; would have restored 
the purity and simplicity of the apostolic church ; and have pre- 
vented the introduction of unauthorized and injurious innova- 
tions into the Protestant churches, and saved a fearful amount of 
mischief, occasioned by the efforts made to retain or reintroduce 
such things. 

A fact or two will illustrate the elevation of Calvin's position 
in regard to this class of topics. Augustine bitterly deplored the 
prevalence of rites and ceremonies in his time, and declared that 
the condition of the Christian church in this respect had become 
more intolerable than that of the old dispensation. But having, 
to some extent at least, abandoned the principle of the exclusive 
authority of the written word in regard to rites and ceremonies, — 
though he still held it fast in regard to matters of doctrine, — he had 
no means of grappling with this giant evil, — he did not venture 



Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 343 

to attempt to do so ; and matters continued at least without any 
improvement in this respect for 1000 years. Luther objected to 
the mass of rites and ceremonies with which he found the worship 
of the Christian church overspread, mainly upon two grounds : — 
1st, That they had from their number become burdensome and 
distracting, tending to supersede and exclude other things of more 
importance; and 2d, That the idea of meritoriousness, which was 
commonly attached to them, more or less definitely, tended to 
pervert and undermine the great doctrine of justification. But 
these principles, though undeniably true, still left the whole subject 
on a very vague and unsatisfactory footing. Calvin grappled with 
it in all its magnitude and difficulty, by maintaining, 1st, That 
they were in the mass unlawful, simply because of their want of 
any positive scriptural sanction ; and 2d, That many of them, 
independently of mere tendencies, were positively idolatrous, and 
were therefore directly and immediately sinful, as being violations 
of the first and second commandments of the Decalogue. 

So much for worship ; and then in regard to government, 
Calvin took the best practicable means both for putting an end 
to all existing corruptions and abuses, and preventing their recur- 
rence : — 1st, By putting an end to anything like the exercise of 
monarchical authority in the church, or independent power vested 
officially in any one man, which was the origin and root of the 
Papacy ; 2d, By falling back upon the combination of aristocracy 
and democracy, which prevailed for at least the first two centuries 
of the Christian era, when the churches were governed by the 
common council of presbyters, and these presbyters were chosen 
by the churches themselves, though tried and ordained by those 
who had been previously admitted to office ; 3d, By providing 
against the formation of the spirit of a mere priestly caste, by 
associating with the ministers in the administration of ecclesiastical 
affairs, a class of men who, though ordained presbyters, were 
usually engaged in the ordinary occupations of society ; and 4:th, 
By trying to prevent a repetition of the history of the rise and 
growth of the Prelacy and the Papacy, through the perversion of 
the one-man power, by fastening the substance of these great prin- 
ciples upon the conscience of the church, as binding jure divino. 
These great principles, so well fitted to sweep away all the exist- 
ing corruptions and abuses in the government of the church, and 
to prevent their recurrence, are evidently in accordance with the 



344 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. 

fundamental ideas on which the modern theory of representative 
government is based, and with the leading features of the provi- 
sion, which has commended itself to all our best and wisest men, 
for the management of those religious and philanthropic associa- 
tions which form one of the great glories of our age. 

In looking back upon the last three centuries, whether we 
survey the history of speculative discussion or of the practical 
influence of Christian churches, we have no reason to be ashamed 
of our Calvinism or our Presbyterianism ; but, on the contrary, 
are just confirmed in our admiration and veneration for Calvin, 
or rather in our gratitude to the great Head of the church for all 
the gifts and graces which He bestowed upon that great man, and 
for all that He did through Calvin's instrumentality. 



CALVIN AND BEZA/ 



We have given some account of the doctrine promulgated, and 
of tne influence exerted upon important theological questions, by 
the leading Reformers, — Luther, Zwingle, and Calvin, — keeping 
in view chiefly the object of furnishing materials for the formation 
of correct opinions in regard to those aspects of their doctrines, 
character, and influence, which have been made subjects of con- 
troversial discussion in more modern times. We have also given 
a view of the character and theological position of Melancthon, 
chiefly because of the influence he seems to have exerted in leading 
the Lutheran churches to abandon the Calvinism of their master, 
and even contributing eventually to the spread of Arminianism 
among the Reformed churches, — and because of the connection 
alleged to exist, historically and argumentatively, between his 
views and those of the Church of England. The only other man 
among the Reformers whom we propose to bring under the notice 
of our readers is Beza. Beza stood in a relation to Calvin very 
similar in some respects to that in which Melancthon stood to 
Luther ; and there is this further point of resemblance between 
him and the Preceptor of Germany, that they were the two great 
scholars of the Reformation, in the more limited sense in which 
that word is commonly employed, — that is, they possessed a 
thorough and critical knowledge of the classical writers of Greece 
and Rome, they had a great talent and predilection for philo- 
logical expositions and discussions, and they exhibited, in an 
eminent degree, that cultivation and refinement both of thought 



British and Foreign Evangelical Review. July 1861. 



346 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

and style, which a thorough acquaintance with classical literature 
is so well fitted to produce. 

Beza was, during the latter years of Calvin's life, most in- 
timately associated with him. He was one of the very ablest 
defenders of Calvin's system of theology. He succeeded to the 
high position which Calvin had long held, not only in Geneva, 
but in the Protestant world ; and was, for a period of above forty 
years after Calvin's death, the most prominent and influential 
theologian in the Reformed, as distinguished from the Lutheran, 
church. He was thirty years of age before he openly and 
thoroughly abjured the Church of Rome, — a step which involved 
exile from his native country, and the sacrifice both of a handsome 
private patrimony and lucrative ecclesiastical benefices. But 
after joining the Reformed church, and settling in Switzerland, 
first at Lausanne and then at Geneva, he was spared, in provi- 
dence, for considerably more than half a century in the full vigour 
of his powers ; and during this long period he was enabled, by 
the excellence of his character, the strength of his intellect, the 
extent of his erudition and literary acquirements, and by his 
strenuous and unwearied exertions, to confer the most important 
benefits upon the church of Christ and the cause of Protestant 
truth. 

He exerted great influence for a very long period in most of 
the Reformed churches, and in none more than in that of Scot- 
land. He advised and encouraged our own great Reformer, John 
Knox, in the whole course of his arduous struggle with the 
Church of Rome, and strenuously exhorted him to take care that 
Scotland should be delivered from Prelacy as well as Popery. He 
did much to form the character and to direct the views of Andrew 
Melville, wdio went to Geneva when a very young man, who was 
for some years a professor in the university of that city over which 
Beza presided, and who continued to carry on an intimate cor- 
respondence with Beza during the whole of his noble struggle in 
his native land against Prelatic and Erastian usurpation. 

Beza's character, as might have been expected, has been sub- 
jected, like that of his great coadjutors in the work of the Refor- 
mation, to the most unscrupulous Popish slanders. The grosser 
charges which have been adduced against him are unsupported by 
any appearance of evidence, and are utterly unworthy of notice. 
They are still occasionally adverted to, as well as those of a simi- 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 347 

lar kind against Calvin, by some of the obscurer class of Popish 
controversialists, though we are not aware that since the publi- 
cation of Bayle's Dictionary, any Papist, who wished to put on 
even the appearance of a regard for candour or fairness, has ven- 
tured to repeat them. There is, indeed, one charge against Beza's 
character of a less heinous description, which has a foundation in 
truth, and of which even the more respectable Romanists have 
endeavoured to make the most. It is, that in early life he pub- 
lished a volume of poetical pieces, some of which were of a licen- 
tious description. The fact is true ; but the circumstances of the 
case, which Popish writers, of course, usually conceal, were these : 
— The poems were written before he was twenty years of age, and 
before lie pined the Protestant Church, though it appears that even 
as early as his sixteenth year he had some religious convictions, and 
some impression of the falsehood of Popery. He afterwards re- 
peatedly and publicly expressed his contrition for the offence. He 
did what he could to suppress the circulation of the work, and he 
at length published, by the advice of his friends, another edition 
of the poems, in which all that was unbecoming and offensive was 
omitted. He always, indeed, denied and defied his enemies to 
prove, that at any time his conduct was such as his poems might 
have led men to suspect. And it is certain, in point of fact, that 
some measure of looseness and coarseness in conversation and in 
writing was not uncommon then, among persons whose general 
character and conduct were in other respects unobjectionable. 

It may be worth while to quote one or two of his expressions 
of contrition for this juvenile offence, which was at once a sin 
against the law of God, and at the same time, by furnishing a 
handle to his enemies, an obstruction, to some extent, to his future 
usefulness. In 1560, soon after his settlement at Geneva, he 
published one of the most important of his smaller works, entitled 
"Confessio Christianse fidei." Pie dedicated it to his early in- 
structor, Melchior Wolmar, who had been professor of Greek in 
the universities of Orleans and Bourges, who had the singular 
honour of being also for a time the preceptor of Calvin, who 
exerted an important and wholesome influence in the formation of 
the character and views of his two illustrious pupils, and who has 
been immortalized by their grateful and affectionate eulogies. In 
this dedication to Wolmar, Beza gives a brief but very interesting 
summary of his past history, and refers to the publication of his 



348 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

poems in the following terms : — " As to these poems, no one 
condemned them earlier, or now detests them more, than I, their 
unhappy author. I wish they were buried in perpetual oblivion, 
and that God would grant me that, since what is done cannot 
become undone, those who read my other writings, so different 
from these, would rather congratulate me on the Lord's kindness 
to me, than continue to accuse one who, of his own accord, con- 
fesses and deplores this sin of his youth." Again, in his note upon 
Matthew i. 19, having occasion to refer, in explanation of the 
word TrapaSeiy/jLaTLcrai,, to a statement of an ancient author, about 
some one who had exposed himself to disgrace by publishing 
" versus parum honestos," he introduces this reference to his own 
case, — "Quod et mihi juveni, necdum in ecclesiam Dei adscito, 
evenit, quam tamen maculam spero me turn dictis turn factis 
eluisse." All this ought in fairness to have shut the mouths of 
his enemies. But it had no such effect, and Papists have con- 
tinued ever since to dilate upon the "Juvenilia," as the poems 
w r ere called, and to make them much worse than they are, by 
perverting some of their statements, which mean no such thing, 
into actual confessions of heinous crimes. This is the only charge 
that can be substantiated against Beza's character. It does not 
affect his position or influence as a Reformer, as it was not till 
about ten years after the publication of his poems that he joined 
the cause of the Eeformation. And after he did take this impor- 
tant step, he was enabled, by God's grace, for more than half a 
century, not only to maintain an unblemished public reputation, 
but to afford, like his fellow-reformers, the most satisfactory 
evidences of personal piety, of zeal for God's glory, and of 
devotedness to the cause of truth and righteousness. 

Beza's works are, to a large extent, controversial and occasional, 
— that is, they arose very much out of the particular controversies 
which at the time engaged the attention of the Reformers, — and 
on this account perhaps they have been less read in subsequent 
times than they deserved. They comprehend, however, full dis- 
cussions of all the various topics which engaged the attention of 
the Reformers, and affected the cause of the Reformation and the 
interests of Protestant truth, during the w T hole of the latter half 
of the sixteenth century. They thus occupy a very important 
place in a survey of the history of theological speculation at that 
important era; and in all of them certainly Beza has afforded 






Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 349 

abundant proof, that he was possessed of great talents and ex- 
tensive erudition, and that he was fully qualified in all respects to 
expound and discuss the most profound and difficult questions in 
theology. The Church of Rome was still a formidable opponent ; 
and Beza has made some valuable contributions to the Popish 
controversy, especially in his "Antithesis Papatus et Christianismi," 
subjoined to his Confession of Faith, in his " Apologia de Justi- 
ficatione," and in his treatise on "the Notes or Marks of the 
True Church." The controversy between the Lutheran and the 
Reformed churches, which had been much embittered in the 
interval between the death of Melancthon in 1560 and that of 
Calvin in 1564, continued during the remainder of the century; 
and Beza was thus under the necessity, as Zwingle had been, of 
spending a great deal of time and pains in exposing the absurdities 
of consubstantiation, and of the strange notion invented to explain 
and defend it, known by the name of the ubiquity or omnipresence 
of Christ's body. The Lutherans became much more unsound 
in their general theological views after the death of their master ; 
and they proceeded so far at length as to reject what are commonly 
reckoned the peculiarities of Calvinism, while they still continued, 
though very inconsistently, to repudiate, even in the " Formula 
Concordise," the semi-Pelagian or Arminian views about synergism 
or co-operation, to which Melancthon had given some counte- 
nance. This change, of course, widened the subjects of contro- 
versy between the Lutheran and Reformed churches ; and Beza 
in consequence was led to write much, and he did it with great 
ability, on predestination and cognate topics. The fuller discussion 
which this important subject underwent after Calvin's death, led, 
as controversy usually does when conducted by men of ability, to a 
more minute and precise exposition of some of the topics involved 
in it. And it has been often alleged that Beza, in his very able 
discussions of this subject, carried his views upon some points 
further than Calvin himself did, so that he has been described as 
being Calvino Calvinior. We are not prepared to deny altogether 
the truth of this allegation ; but we are persuaded that there is 
less ground for it than is sometimes supposed, and that the points 
of alleged difference between them in matters of doctrine, respect 
chiefly topics on which Calvin was not led to give any very formal 
or explicit deliverance, because they were not at the time subjects 
of discussion, or indeed ever present to his thoughts. 



350 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

The principal subjects in regard to which the allegation re- 
ferred to has been made, are the question controverted between 
the Sublapsarians and the Supralapsarians about the order of the 
divine decrees in their bearing upon the fall of the human race, — 
the imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, — the extent of 
the atonement, — and the nature and import of justification. It 
may not be uninteresting to explain how the matter stands as to 
the views of Calvin and Beza respectively upon these important 
subjects. We mean to devote to this matter the principal portion 
of our present discussion ; and we think it will appear, from the 
survey, that there is really no very material difference between 
the theology of Calvin and of Beza, any apparent discrepancy 
arising chiefly from the usual tendency of enlarged controversial 
discussion to produce a greater amount of exactness and precision 
in details ; while it may also appear that Beza, by his very able 
exposition and defence of the doctrines of Calvin, has rendered 
important services to the cause of scriptural theology and Protes- 
tant truth, and has to some extent anticipated that exactness and 
precision with respect to definitions and distinctions, which are 
characteristic of the great systematic divines, especially the Dutch 
and Swiss theological professors, of the seventeenth century. But 
we must first notice the services of Beza in some other departments 
of theological literature. 

A class of subjects came to be discussed in the latter part 
of the sixteenth century which had not engaged so much of the 
attention of the earlier Reformers, — especially the Erastian and 
the Prelatic controversies, — and in the discussion of these matters 
Beza bore his part nobly as an able and faithful champion of the 
truth. The Erastian controversy, indeed, as conducted between 
Erastus and Beza, turned mainly upon the particular subject of 
the excommunication of church members ; and it was not till the 
following century, that the whole of the principles usually re- 
garded by Presbyterian divines as comprehended in the Erastian 
controversy, were subjected to a full and thorough discussion. 
Still, even at that early stage, the question was mooted, on which 
the entire progress of the subsequent discussion, down even to our 
own day, has made it more and more manifest that the whole con- 
troversy hinges, — viz. whether or not Christ has appointed in His 
church a government, distinct from, independent of, and in its 
own province not subordinate to, civil magistracy. And on this 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 351 

great question, as well as on the particular topic of excommuni- 
cation comprehended under it, Erastus took the side which has 
always been supported by politicians, sycophants, and worldlings, 
while Beza ably defended that which has been adhered to by all 
intelligent and conscientious Presbyterians. 

The subject of Prelacy was more fully discussed during this 
period than that of Erastianism, mainly because the Church of 
England, differing in this from almost all the Reformed churches, 
adopted a prelatic constitution. Beza entertained very strong and 
decided views upon this subject, and his two books, the one, " De 
Triplici Episcopatu," and the other a reply to Saravia's " Trea- 
tise de Ministrorum Evangelii Gradibus," are still important and 
valuable works in the contest between Presbytery and Prelacy ; 
although Episcopalian controversialists have continued, down even 
to the present day, to produce garbled and mutilated extracts from 
Beza as well as from Calvin, to prove that these great men were 
favourable to the prelatic form of church government. Hadrian 
Saravia, his principal opponent upon this subject, had been a 
minister in the Low Countries, and was ultimately settled as a 
prebend of Canterbury, where he became intimate with Hooker. 
He, of course, knew well that Beza was a decided Presbyterian, 
and indeed he gives him the exclusive credit of preventing Prelacy 
from being adopted in the Reformed churches. " Nam hoc audeo 
affirmare, si unus D. Beza episcopos retineri ecclesia3 judicasset 
utile, nullse ab iis abhorrerent Reformats ecclesise, quas hodie 
episcopos nullos admittere primum reform ationis esse caput aasti- 
mant."* This is really doing Beza too much honour; for we 
may confidently assert, that Andrew Melville would have kept 
Prelacy out of Scotland at least, even if Beza had been tempted 
to abandon the cause of Presbytery. It is, however, a fine testi- 
mony to the important and extensive influence which Beza exerted, 
in maintaining in the Protestant churches that form of govern- 
ment which has the full sanction of apostolic practice as set before 
us in the New Testament,— confirmed by the testimony of the 
only genuine and authentic remains of apostolic men, the Epistles 
of Clement and Polycarp, — and which was decidedly approved of 
by the great body of the Reformers. 

Beza was one of the very first who attempted anything in an 



* Prologus ad Exaineu Tractatus de Triplici Episcopatu. 



352 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

important department of theological literature, which has since 
his time received a great deal of attention. We mean what is 
now usually comprehended under the two heads of criticism and 
exegesis, — the former including everything bearing upon the 
settlement of the true text of the Greek New Testament, or of 
the actual words which should be held to constitute it ; and the 
latter including everything bearing upon the exact grammatical 
interpretation of all the words and phrases which are found to 
compose it. And Beza's labours in these departments, including 
his different editions of the Greek text from MSS., and his trans- 
lation and annotations or commentary, were such as — consider- 
ing the circumstances in which he was placed, and the means and 
opportunities he enjoyed — reflect great credit upon his scholarship 
and critical acumen. A very unjust and unfair attack has been 
made upon Beza's character and labours, through the medium of 
his translation of the New Testament into Latin, and his annota- 
tions or commentary upon it, by Dr Campbell of Aberdeen, in 
the tenth of his " Preliminary Dissertations to his Translation of 
the Gospels ; " and as we remember receiving from the perusal of 
this Dissertation in our student days an unfavourable impression 
of Beza, which we have been long satisfied was thoroughly unjust, 
we think it proper to make some observations upon it. 

Dr Campbell's Preliminary Dissertations form a work which 
is in many respects very valuable, — one of the most important 
contributions, indeed, which have been made by Scotland to a 
department of theological study far too little cultivated among 
us — the critical exposition of the New Testament. It is a work, 
however, which ought to be read with much caution, as there is 
not a little about it that is very defective and objectionable, and 
fitted to exert an injurious influence upon the minds of students 
of theology. Dr Campbell was a very great pretender to im- 
partiality and candour. But it is very plain, that he had his 
blinding and perverting prejudices like other men, and that these 
were not in favour of what we have been accustomed to regard 
as the most important truths revealed in God's word, or of the 
men who were most zealous in defending them. We had for- 
merly an opportunity of pointing out* how destitute Dr Campbell 
was of all adequate sense of the importance of sound doctrine, 

* P. 3. 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 353 

and how incompetent, in consequence, he was to appreciate aright 
the most important service rendered to the church by the Refor- 
mers, Such a man was not to be expected to have any liking to 
so able, faithful, and zealous a champion of Scripture truth as 
Beza was. And accordingly, in the Dissertation formerly referred 
to, he has made an attack upon Beza's Latin translation of the 
New Testament, and upon his character generally, which we 
think belies all his loud and frequent professions of fairness and 
candour. 

The general charge which he adduces against Beza, and which 
he illustrates by a detail of instances, is that — under the influence 
of theological prejudice and partisanship — he mistranslates a 
number of passages, and even acknowledges that he had done this 
in order to promote his own theological views, or to deprive those 
of his opponents of some appearance of scriptural support. The 
case is put by Dr Campbell in a very unfair and exaggerated 
form, and in such a way as evidently to insinuate a charge against 
Beza's integrity in dealing with the word of God. He has ad- 
duced nothing, however, which — even were it all true and correct 
— would amount to a proof of anything like a want of integrity. 
For there is not the slightest ground to allege, that Beza either 
introduced into his translation, or brought out in his annotations, 
anything but wdiat he honestly believed to be the true and real 
mind of God in His word. The charge derives its whole plausi- 
bility from these two things : — 1st, That Beza was not always 
sufficiently careful to keep distinct the functions of the mere trans- 
lator and those of the commentator, and did in consequence some- 
times deviate in his translation from the literal meaning of the 
mere words, that he might bring out more plainly and distinctly 
what he believed to be the true scriptural sense of the passage ; 
and 2d, That he sometimes assigned, as the reason for this devia- 
tion, that a more literal translation of the mere words would 
seem to contradict some other portion of Scripture, or some truth 
which he believed to be taught there, — a statement on which, 
wherever it occurs, Dr Campbell puts an unfair and offensive 
construction, as if it were a confession of a dishonourable or 
fraudulent motive or purpose. Now, this conduct of Beza indi- 
cates, no doubt, a defective and erroneous conception of the pre- 
cise and proper functions of the mere translator, as distinguished 
from the commentator ; but it should not be regarded as incon- 

VOL. I. 23 



354 



CALVIN AND BEZA. 



[Essay VII. 



sistent with integrity, especially when we take into account the 
circumstances in which the translation was put forth, and the 
relation between it and the commentary. Beza's translation of 
the New Testament into Latin was not published, or intended to 
be used, separately or by itself, but was printed alongside of the 
original Greek, while the Vulgate Latin version was also inserted 
in a third parallel column; and the annotations subjoined at the 
foot of the page, were intended chiefly to explain the reasons of 
the translation, which was thus virtually embodied in the com- 
mentary as a part of it. 

The true state of the case will be better understood by advert- 
ing to the instances which Dr Campbell founds upon; some of 
which indeed are based upon misrepresentation, and others are 
mere specimens of wire-drawn criticism and special pleading, illus- 
trating nothing but his unfairness and anxiety to make out a case. 
One is, that in Acts xiv. 23, Beza has translated the words 
-)(eipoTovr}(javTe<; 8e avrois irpeafivTepovs, " quumque ipsis per 
suffragia creassent presby teros ; " — and this Dr Campbell repre- 
sents as an unfair translation of the word ^etporoveco, in order to 
sanction the doctrine of the popular election of ministers. That 
Beza believed in the doctrine of the right of the Christian people 
to the substantial choice of their pastors, and that he regarded this 
passage as a proof of it, is certain; and no man of good sense and 
sound judgment, who has deliberately and impartially examined 
his writings, can entertain any doubt of this.* But the unfairness 
of the version cannot be established ; for Beza certainly thought, 
whether rightly or wrongly, and many other competent judges 
have agreed with him, that he gave here the most literal and exact 
rendering of the word ^ecporoveco, and that any other version would 
have come short of bringing out the whole meaning of what was 
implied in it. On several occasions Beza has translated iravres 
'dv6pct)7TOL y not by oinnes homines, but by quivis homines, — that is, 
men of all sorts and in all varieties of circumstances, without dis- 
tinction or exception ; and Dr Campbell represents every instance 



* TVe are aware that the accuracy 
of this view of Beza's sentiments upon 
this subject was disputed by some of 
the early defenders of the Church of 
England, — by some of the champions 
of patronage and moderatism about 
the period of the secession from the 



Church of Scotland in last century, — 
and more recently, with much less 
knowledge of the subject, by Sir 
William Hamilton ; but we do not 
regard any of these facts as requiring 
any modification of the statement 
made in the text. 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 355 

of this sort as an unfair perversion of Scripture to serve Calvinistic 
purposes. Beza, of course, honestly believed that quivis brought 
out more accurately the real mind of the inspired writer in these 
passages than omnes did, as it would have been generally under- 
stood ; and in this we have no doubt that he was right. It would 
have been more accordant, however, with correct views of the 
precise functions of a translator, to have retained the word omnes, 
and explained its sense in the notes as a commentator. But con- 
sidering the circumstances formerly adverted to, as to the object 
of his translation, and the relation in which it stood to his annota- 
tions, it is quite unfair to represent this as a violation of integrity. 
Perhaps the worst case for Beza which Dr Campbell has adduced 
is his translation of Heb. x. 38, and in this he has been followed 
by the authors of our authorized version. In this passage Beza 
has, without warrant from the original, inserted the word quis, — 
in our version any man, — to prevent the text from appearing to 
discountenance the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. 
This was certainly an unwarrantable deviation from the proper 
functions of a translator ; though it ought to be mentioned, in 
justice to Beza and our translators, that Grotius (in loc), who did 
not believe in the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance, agreed with 
Beza in thinking that some countenance is given to the insertion 
by the passage in Habakkuk, here quoted by the apostle ; and that 
— as is noticed by Dean Trench, in his admirable work " On the 
Authorized Version of the New Testament, in connection with 
recent Proposals for its Bevision"* — the same sense is assigned 
to the passage upon purely philological grounds by De Wette 
and Winer, who had no Calvinistic predilections. 

The most unwarranted and unjust of Dr Campbell's instances 
of Beza's alleged unfairness, is that founded on, and suggested 
by, his translation of 1 John iii. 9 — 7r<x9 6 <yeyevvw fievos i/c Qeov 
a/jbaprtav ov iroiei, which he translated — quisquis natus est ex Deo 
peccato non dat operam. Of course Beza's reason for, and object 
in, translating the last words of the clause, peccato non dat operam, 
— instead of peccatum non facit, as the Vulgate has it, — was, as he 
states explicitly, to avoid the appearance of the passage teaching 
the doctrine of the sinless perfection of regenerate persons in this 
life, and thus contradicting many explicit declarations of Scripture. 



* 2d Edition, p. 199. 



356 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

So far this instance is exactly similar to those already adverted 
to, in which the proper functions of the translator and the com- 
mentator are not kept sufficiently distinct. But Dr Campbell 
farther makes Beza's translation of this passage, combined with 
his annotations or commentary on two other passages, — Matt. v. 
20 and vii. 23, — the foundation of a more general and more serious 
charge against his character and teaching. He distinctly accuses 
him of having for his object in these passages, " kindly to favour 
sinners, not exorbitantly profligate, so far as to dispel all fear 
about their admission into the kingdom of heaven,"* and of endea- 
vouring with this view to elude the force of our Lord's declaration,! 
and " reconcile it to his own licentious maxims." He supports 
this veiy heavy charge by perverting Beza's statements in these 
passages, in order to extract from them the sentiment, that men 
need have no doubt of getting to heaven unless they were, and 
continued to be, gross and heinous sinners, Now, this is really, in 
plain terms, a misrepresentation and a calumny. The passages 
adduced manifestly afford no ground whatever for the allegation, 
that Beza intended to teach the doctrine ascribed to him ; and we 
can scarcely persuade ourselves that Dr Campbell himself believed 
that the proof which he adduced was sufficient to establish his 
charge. It is perfectly plain that Beza, in the passages quoted 
or referred to, intended to teach and did teach this doctrine, and 
no other, viz. that the fact that men are still sinners in God's 
sight — sinning every day in thought, word, and deed — was not of 
itself a sufficient reason why they should conclude, that they had 
not been united to Christ by faith, and why they might not enjoy 
good hope through grace ; while he has never said anything fitted, 
and much less intended, as is alleged, to lead men to remain at 
ease in their sins, because sure of heaven, if only they are " not 
exorbitantly profligate." Dr Campbell quotes in the original Latin, 
a sentence from the middle of Beza's note on 1 John iii. 4, where 
this matter is most fully explained, and does so for the purpose 
of showing that Beza acknowledged, that his object in giving the 
translation peccato non dat operam instead of peccatum non facit, 
was to shut out the appearance of this statement countenancing 
the doctrine of sinless perfection in this life. But in the sentence 
almost immediately preceding that which he quotes for this purpose, 



Diss. x. p. v. s. 12. f Matt. v. 20. 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 357 

Beza expressly describes the kind of person to whom his statement 
applies, whom he regards as unregenerate, and therefore inad- 
missible into heaven, and shut out from the present hope of it, — 
not as one who is merely " not exorbitantly profligate," but as one 
" who does not strive after holiness, that is, in whom sin reigns," — 
qui sanctitati non studet, id est, in quo regnat peccatiwi, — referring, 
of course, to the apostle's description of the distinction between 
the regenerate and the unregenerate, sin reigning in the latter, and 
still present and very manifest at least to themselves, though not 
reicrnincr in the former. And what makes the matter much worse 
is, that in the words immediately succeeding the extract quoted by 
Dr Campbell, Beza has expressly and solemnly protested against 
this very misinterpretation of his meaning, in the following scrip- 
tural and most striking and edifying statement : — 

" Why do we say this ? Is it to discountenance the earnest pursuit of 
holiness ? is it to show that men should not every day be growing in grace ? 
By no means ; for we teach that a perpetual progress in holiness is the certain 
and perpetual effect of faith. Why then do we say this ? It is lest Satan 
should deprive us of our comfort. For if we can conclude that we are in 
Christ, only when we shall no longer need to offer the prayer, ' Forgive us our 
debts,' who does not see, who does not feel, who does not experience a thousand 
times every day. that it is quite in vain that this consolation is offered to us ? " 

Dr Campbell had no right to distort and pervert the plain 
meaning of Beza's statements, and to ascribe to him " licentious 
maxims," which he had not only never countenanced, but had 
expressly and solemnly disclaimed. Dr Campbell, it is to be 
feared, disliked Beza's Calvinistic doctrine, and probably disliked 
still more his strict Calvinistic morality and experimental godli- 
ness ; and the whole of his remarks upon Beza's translation of the 
New Testament are characterized by un candid misrepresentation. 
It is quite unwarranted to represent Beza's general character as a 
controversialist, as marked by a want of fairness and candour. 
There are some controversialists who — from strong prejudice and 
impetuosity, from rashness and recklessness, or from something 
like a sort of natural obliquity of understanding and a deficiency 
of sense and judgment — manage their disputes in such a way, that 
we find some difficulty in determining whether a want of fairness 
and candour is the worst charge that can be justly adduced against 
them, and whether we are not warranted in accusing them of a< 
positive want of integrity. But men who are acquainted with 



358 



CALVIN AND BEZA. 



[Essay VII. 



Beza's writings, and who can judge of them with anything like 
impartiality, will have no such difficulty in forming their estimate 
of his character. They will not only reject the suspicion which 
Dr Campbell has laboured to raise against his general integrity, 
but they will be convinced that, though he sometimes indulged 
most unwarrantably in the severity of invective against opponents, 
which was then so common, he showed no disposition to take 
unfair advantages, or to practise the mere artifices of controversy, 
but manifested habitually no ordinary measure of impartiality 
and candour; in short, they will probably conclude, that Beza 
possessed a much larger amount of integrity and fairness than Dr 
Campbell did, though he did not make so ostentatious a parade of 
these qualities.* 

The chief points, as we have mentioned, on which it has been 
alleged that Calvin and Beza differed in their theological senti- 
ments, and that Beza was more Calvinistic than Calvin, are the 
order of the divine decrees in their bearing upon the fall as contro- 
verted between the Sublapsarians and the Supralapsarians, — the 
imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, — the extent of the 
atonement, — and the nature and import of justification ; and to 
each of these four points we now propose to advert in succession, 
contemplating them chiefly in their historical aspects. 

I. The controversy been the Sublapsarians and the Supra- 
lapsarians is one of no great intrinsic importance, though it has 



* As this is a grave matter, we give 
Beza's note in full, putting in italics 
the sentence which Dr Campbell quotes 
from it, and quotes in the original 
Latin. We are entitled to assume 
that he had read the whole of what we 
are about to quote. 

" Quisquis operain dat peccato — nag 
6 -ttqioju twj KfAocprixv (1 John hi. 4). 
Dare operam peccato, et purificare se, 
opponuntur. Itaque wotsiv xpcocprioci/ 
differt hoc loco ab x/^ocprausii/ simpli- 
citer accepto. Sed de eo demum dici- 
tur qui sanctitati non studet, id est, 
in quo regnat peccatum. Idque ita 
esse non modo liquet ex antithesi, sed 
etiam ex eo quod supra commemoravit 
(c. i. ver. 8, et c. ii. ver. 1), ex tota 
t deniqne Scriptura et rei experientia 
'perpetua. Itaque non homines sed 
monstra hominum sunt Pelagiani, Ca- 



thari, Cselestiani, Donatistse, Anabap- 
tist se, Libertini, qui ex hoc loco perfec- 
tionem illam somniant, a qua absunt 
ipsi omnium hominum longissime. Quor- 
sum autem hoc ? An ut studium sanc- 
timonias damnemus ? An ut homines 
doceamus quotidie non progredi ? 
Minime profecto, quum perpetuum 
sanctificationis progressum doceamus 
certum ac perpetuum esse fidei effec- 
tum. Quorsum ergo? Nempe ne 
Satan nobis hanc consolationem nos- 
tram eripiat. Nam si turn demum 
nos in Christo esse colhgemus, quum 
non amplius indigebimus ilia preca- 
tione, et remitte nobis debita nostra, 
quis non videt, quis non sentit, quis 
non millies quotidie experitur, frustra 
nobis hanc consolationem proponi ? " — 
Theodori Bezse Annotationes Majores 
in Nov. Test. 1594, p. 609. 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. ' 359 

occasionally been discussed with considerable keenness. In 
modern times, indeed, it is much more frequently and fully dwelt 
upon by Arminians than by Calvinists. They usually labour to 
give prominence to this matter, as if it were a topic of great im- 
portance, about which Calvinists were at irreconcilable variance 
among themselves; insinuating at the same time that Supralap- 
sarianism — which is more likely to appear harsh and offensive to 
man's natural feelings — is the truest and most consistent Cal- 
vinism, though in point of fact it has been held by comparatively 
few Calvinistic theologians. This artifice seems to have been first 
tried by Baro, the Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, 
who was compelled by the academical authorities to resign his 
office because of his anti- Calvinistic notions. It was adopted by 
Arminius himself ; and he has been followed in this by most of 
those who have been called after his name, including even, though 
in a less offensive form, Richard Watson, whose ", Theological 
Institutes " is the leading text-book of the evangelical Arminian- 
ism of the Wesleyan Methodists. 

We do not intend to dwell at length upon the topics usually 
introduced into this controversy, because they scarcely lie within 
the line of legitimate discussion, and because to give them much 
prominence is really to countenance the unfair use which the 
Arminians have commonly made of this subject. It is usually 
discussed in the works of the great systematic divines of the seven- 
teenth century, under the heads of " The Object of Predestina- 
tion," and " The Order of the Divine Decrees." The question is 
usually put in this form, whether the object of the decree of pre- 
destination, electing some men to eternal life and leaving others 
to perish, be man unfallen or man fallen; or, in other words, 
whether we should conceive of God as in the act of electing some 
men to life and passing by the rest, contemplating men, or having 
them present to His mind, simply as rational and responsible beings 
whom He was to create, or as regarding them as fallen into a state 
of sin and misery, from which He resolved to save some of them, 
and to abstain from saving the rest. Those who go above and 
beyond the fall, and regard the object of the decree of predestina- 
tion as man or the human race, viewed as not yet created and 
fallen but simply as to be created, are called Supralapsarians; while 
those who stop as it were before the fall, and regard the object of 
the decree of predestination as man or the human race, viewed as 



360 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

already fallen into a state of sin and misery, are called Sublapsa- 
rians. It is evident that this question virtually resolves into that 
of the order of the divine decrees, — or the investigation of this 
topic, how we should conceive of the relation in point of time be- 
tween the different decrees, or departments of the one decree, of 
God in regard to the human race. The fundamental Supralapsa- 
rian position, as above stated, is virtually identical with this one, 
— that we ought to conceive of God as first decreeing to manifest 
His character in saving some men and in consigning the rest to 
misery ; then, in sequence and subordination to this decree, resolv- 
ing to create man, and to permit him to fall into a state of sin ; 
while the fundamental Sublapsarian position is, that we ought to 
conceive of God as first decreeing to create man and to permit 
him to fall, and then as resolving to save some men out of this 
fallen and corrupt mass, and to leave the rest to perish. The 
whole history of the discussion which has taken place between 
Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians shows, that this really em- 
bodies the true state of the question ; and this again shows, that 
the question runs up into topics which lie beyond the reach of our 
faculties, and which are not made known to us in Scripture. And 
this general position is confirmed by the fact, that both parties 
admit that there is not any real succession of time in the divine 
mind, and that the whole of the decree or decrees of God with 
respect to the human race are in truth one simple undivided act 
of the divine intelligence, exercised in accordance with all the 
perfections of the divine nature. 

The views which most naturally and obviously occur in sur- 
veying the discussions which have taken place on this subject, are 
such as these. It seems plainly enough to have been made the 
principal design of the revelation which God has put into our 
hands, to inform us of the fall of man from the estate in which he 
was created into an estate of sin and misery ; and especially of the 
great and glorious scheme which God has devised and executed 
for saving some men from this condition of guilt, depravity, and 
wretchedness, and bringing them into an estate of salvation by a 
Kedeemer. Accordingly Scripture tells us little or nothing that 
does not bear more or less directly upon these objects. It tells us 
very little of God's plans and purposes, except what we see actually 
being executed or carried into effect, in the process by which some 
men are saved from the death in sins and trespasses in which all 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 361 

men lie, and are prepared for everlasting blessedness. This is the 
substance of what God is now doing with the race of man, and 
this is the substance of what He has represented himself in His 
word, as from eternity decreeing or purposing to do. In the absence 
of any definite scriptural information, we have no satisfactory 
materials for ascertaining more than this concerning the divine 
counsels and plans, and we should carefully abstain from preca- 
rious and conjectural speculations upon topics which lie so far 
beyond the reach of our capacities. We can scarcely frame a con- 
ception of any plans or purposes which God could have formed 
concerning the eternal salvation of men, which did not assume or 
imply, that they were regarded or contemplated as having all 
fallen into a state of sin and misery, from which some of them 
were to be rescued. And thus it appears that, practically, any 
conception we can form of God's act in predestinating some men 
to life and in passing by the rest, must proceed substantially upon 
Sublapsarian principles. The Supralapsarian theory is founded 
rather upon abstract reasonings, by which we follow out the con- 
nection of doctrines in the way of speculation, than upon any direct 
information that is given us in Scripture. And however plausible, 
or even conclusive, some of these reasonings may appear to be, we 
can scarcely fail to feel that in prosecuting them we are involved in 
matters which are too high for us, and with respect to which it is 
impossible for us to attain to anything like firm and certain footing. 
It may be said that all Calvinists agree in everything which 
almost any Calvinist regards as taught upon this subject in Scrip- 
ture with clearness and certainty. They all believe that God, 
according to the eternal counsel of His own will, hath unchange- 
ably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass ; and they include the 
fall of Adam in God's eternal purpose, and in His sovereign exe- 
cution of that purpose in providence. And this of course is the 
great difficulty, from which Sublapsarians cannot indeed escape, 
but which seems to be somewhat aggravated upon the Supralap- 
sarian theory. For by that theory, God appears to be represented 
as more directly and positively decreeing and appointing the fall, — 
as a mean necessary for carrying into effect a purpose, — conceived 
of as already formed, of saving some men, and leaving others to 
perish. Although all Calvinists believe and admit that God fore- 
ordained the fall of Adam, and that He decreed to exercise, and 
did exercise, the same providence or agency in regard to that event, 



362 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

as in regard to the other subsequent sinful actions of men, — 
" having purposed to order it to His own glory,"* — yet most Cal- 
vinists have thought it more in accordance with the general repre- 
sentations of Scripture, and with the caution and reverence with 
which we ought to contemplate the counsels and actings of Him 
who is incomprehensible, but of whom we know certainly that He 
is not the author of sin, to conceive of Him as regarding men as 
already fallen into a state of sin and misery, when He formed the 
purpose of saving some men and of leaving others to perish. 

The difference, then, between Calvinists upon this subject is 
not of any material importance. It does not affect the substance 
of the doctrine which all Calvinists maintain in opposition to the 
Arminians. It is a point rather of abstract speculation upon the 
logical consequences of doctrines, than a matter of direct revela- 
tion ; and it is one on which many judicious Calvinists, in modern 
times, have thought it unnecessary, if not unwarrantable, to give 
any formal or explicit deliverance, while they have usually adhered 
to the ordinary representations of Scripture upon the subject, 
which are at least practically Sublapsarian. Sublapsarians all 
admit that God unchangeably foreordained the fall of Adam, as 
well as every other event that has come to pass; while they deny 
that this doctrine can be proved necessarily to involve the conclu- 
sion, that, to use the word of our Confession of Faith, " God is 
the author of sin," or " that violence is offered to the will of the 
creatures," or that " the liberty or contingency of second causes 
is taken away." f And Supralapsarians all admit that God's eter- 
nal purposes were formed in the exercise of all His perfections, 
and upon a full and certain knowledge of all things possible as 
well as actual, — that is, certainly future ; and more especially that 
a respect to sin does come into consideration in predestination, or, 
as Turretine expresses it, in setting forth the true state of the 
question upon that point, " in prsedestinatione rationem peccati in» 
considerationem venire, ut nemo damnetur nisi propter peccatum, 
et nemo salvetur nisi qui miser f uerit et perditus." J Even when 



* Westminster Confession, c. vi. s. 1. 

f C. iii. s. 1. 

t Loc. iv. Q. ix. s. 7 —The Sub- 
lapsarians, while maintaining "lapsum 
hominern esse proprium subjectum 
turn electionis turn reprobationis," 



sum hominis non esse causam repro- 
bationis," and held that the foresight of 
the fall was present to the divine mind 
in predestination, " non sub ratione 
causae sed sub ratione connexae con- 
ditionis, quam intuitus est in omnibus, 



conceded to the Supralapsarians "lap- ' sive electis sive reprobatis." — (Dave- 



Essay VIL] 



CALVIN AND BEZA. 



363 



this question used to be discussed among Calvinists, both parties, 
.though occasionally betrayed into strong statements in the excite- 
ment of controversy, admitted that the difference involved nothing 
of material importance, and did not really affect the substance of 
any doctrine revealed in Scripture. The Supralapsarians have 
always been a small minority among Calvinistic divines, and have 
had to defend their views against the great body of their brethren. 
They have usually been men of high talent, with a great capacity 
and inclination for abstract speculation, and considerable confi- 
dence in their own powers. In these circumstances, it is quite in 
accordance with the well-known principles of human nature, that 
they should have been specially disposed to overrate the importance 
of their peculiar notions. And yet we find that they generally 
concurred with the Sublapsarians in representing the difference as 
one of no great moment. There never was a more able or more 
zealous Supralapsarian than Dr William Twisse, the prolocutor of 
the Westminster Assembly. No one has written in support of 
Supralapsarian views at greater length or with greater keenness, 
and yet he, to his honour, has made the following candid admis- 
sion as to the great importance of the points in which the opposite 
parties agreed, and the small importance of the one point in which 
they differed : — 

" It is true there is no cause of breach either of unity or amity between 
our divines upon this difference, as I showed in my digressions (De Prsedestina- 
tione, Digress. 1), seeing neither of them derogates either from the prerogative 
of God's grace, or of His sovereignty over His creatures to give grace to whom 
He will, and to deny it to whom He will ; and consequently to make whom 
He will vessels of mercy, and whom He will vessels of wrath ; but equally they 
stand for the divine prerogative in each. And as for the ordering of God's 
decrees of creation, permission of the fall of Adam, giving grace of faith and 
repentance unto some and denying it to others, and finally saving some and 
damning others, whereupon only arise the different opinions as touching the 
object of predestination and reprobation, it is merely apex logicus, a point of 
logic. And were it not a mere madness to make a breach of unity or charity 
in the church of God merely upon a point of logic?"* 

On this unnecessary and now obsolete subject of controversy, 
it has been alleged that Calvin and Beza took opposite sides, — 



nant Determinationes, Qu. xxvi. pp. 
122-3, and De Prsedestinatione, p. 
116.) 



* The Riches of Gods Love unto 
the Vessels of Mercy, etc., in answer 
to Hoard, p. 35. 



364 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

that the former was a Sublapsarian, and the latter a Supralapsarian. 
There is no doubt that Beza, in defending the doctrine of predes- 
tination, was led to assert Supralapsarian views ; though he was 
not, as has been sometimes alleged, the first who broached them, 
for they had been held by some of the more orthodox schoolmen, 
as has been shown by Twisse and Davenant.* But, while Beza's 
opinion is clear enough, it is not by any means certain on which 
side Calvin is to be ranked, and this question — viz. whether 
Calvin is to be regarded as a Sublapsarian or a Supralapsarian — 
has been made the subject of formal and elaborate controversy. 
The Sublapsarians have endeavoured to show that they are entitled 
to claim Calvin's authority in support of their views, while Supra- 
lapsarians and Arminians have generally denied this, — the former 
of these two classes, that they might claim his testimony in their 
own favour, and the latter, that they might excite odium against 
him, by giving prominence to all the strongest and harshest state- 
ments that ever dropped from him on the subject of predestina- 
tion. A specimen of the way in which this question, as to what 
Calvin's views were, has been handled by Sublapsarians, will be 
found in Turretine.t The case of the Supralapsarians is elabo- 
rately pleaded by Twisse, in his "Vindicise Gratise, potestatis, 
ac providential Dei;"! while the Arminian view is brought out 
by Curcellasus, in reply to Amyraldus, in his treatise " De jure 
Dei in creaturas innocentes." § 

All this, of course, implies that there is real ground for doubt 
and for difference of opinion as to what Calvin's sentiments upon 
this subject were ; and the cause of this is, that the question was 
not discussed in his time, — that it does not seem to have been ever 
distinctly present to his thoughts as a point to be investigated, — and 
that, in consequence, he has not been led to give a formal and ex- 
plicit deliverance regarding it. This is the cause of the difficulty 
of ascertaining what Calvin's opinion upon this point was ; and if 
it be indeed true that this precise question he was never led 
formally and deliberately to consider and decide, it is scarcely 
worth while to spend time in examining the exact meaning of 
statements which bear upon it only indirectly and incidentally. 
At the same time, we are* of opinion that the preponderance of 



* Davenant, Deter minationes^. 121. I % Lib. i. Digress, viii. c. 2. 
t Loc. iv. Q. ix. s. 30. | § C. x. Opera, p. 762. 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 365 

evidence here is in favour of the Sublapsarians, — that is, we think 
that, on taking a fair and impartial view of Calvin's general cha- 
racter and principles, and of all that he has written connected with 
this matter, it appears more probable that, if the question had been 
directly and formally proposed to him, and he had been called 
upon to give an explicit deliverance regarding it, he would have 
decided in favour of Sublapsarian views. But as matters stand, 
we do not think that either party is entitled to claim him as an 
actual adherent. There is a remarkable passage in Calvin's 
"Tractatus de iEterna Dei Prsedestinatione," — which is pub- 
lished in Niemeyer's " Collectio Confessionum," under the title of 
" Consensus Genevensis," — containing perhaps about as near an 
approximation as anything he has written to a deliverance upon 
this question. It cannot be reconciled with the Supralapsarian 
view ; while at the same time that view, or something very like 
it, is set aside rather as unwarrantable and presumptuous, than 
as positively erroneous. We think it worth while to quote this 
passage, not only because of its bearing upon the matter under 
consideration, but also because it furnishes a good illustration of 
the injustice often done to Calvin by men who have never read 
his writings, and a specimen of the abundant evidence that might 
be adduced of his genuine moderation, his thorough good sense, his 
mature wisdom, and of the profound reverence and caution with 
which he usually conducted his investigations into divine things. 
Having occasion to refer to the difference between the two topics 
of the bearing of God's foreordination and providence upon the 
fall of Adam on the one hand, and the bearing of foreordination 
and providence upon the election and reprobation, the salvation 
and final misery, of fallen men individually on the other, — and this 
virtually involves the point controverted between the Supralap- 
sarians and the Sublapsarians, — he expresses himself in the follow- 
ing words: — "Ceterum qusestionem banc (i.e. the bearing of divine 
foreordination and providence upon Adam's fall) non ideo tantum 
parcius attingere convenit, quod abstrusa est ac in penitiore sanc- 
tuarii Dei adyto recondita, sed quia otoisa curiositas alenda non 
est, cujus ilia nimis alta speculatio alumna est simul ac nutrix. 
Quamquam interim quse Augustinus Libro de Genesi ad literam 
undecimo disserit, quum ad Dei timorem et reverentiam omnia 
temperet, minime improbo. Altera autem pars (i.e. the bearing 
of divine foreordination and providence upon the fate and destiny 



366 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

of fallen men individually), " quod ex damnata Adae sobole Deus 
quos visum est eligit, quos vult reprobat, sicuti ad fidem exercen- 
dam longe aptior est, ita ma j ore fructu tractatur. In hac igitur 
doctrina, quae humanae naturae et corruptionem et reatum in se 
continet, libentius insisto, sicuti non solum ad pietatem propius 
conducit sed magis rnihi videtur theologica (i.e. more inti- 
mately connected with a full exposition of the scheme of Christian 
theology). Meminerimus tamen in ea quoque sobrie modesteque 
philosophandum, ne alterius progredi tentemus quam Dominus 
nos verbo suo deducit." * In this noble passage Calvin virtually 
puts aside Supralapsarian speculations, and insists only on that 
great doctrine of predestination, in the maintenance of which all 
Calvinists are agreed. Beza, then, in his explicit advocacy of 
Supralapsarianism, went beyond his master. We do not regard 
this among the services which he rendered to scriptural truth; 
especially as we are bound in candour to admit that there is some 
ground to believe that his high views upon this subject exerted a 
repelling influence upon the mind of Arminius, who studied under 
him for a time at Geneva. 

We may add some historical notices of the subsequent discus- 
sions connected with this subject, especially as the references we 
have made to Dr Twisse will naturally suggest the inquiry, how 
this matter was dealt with by the Westminster Assembly. In 
addition to Beza, the most eminent men who defended Supralap- 
sarian views in the sixteenth century were Whittaker and Per- 
kins. These were the greatest divines in the Church of England 
during the latter part of Queen Elizabeth's reign, — men quite 
entitled to rank with Jewel and Hooker in point of ability and 
learning, and superior to them in knowledge of the sacred Scrip- 
tures, and in acquaintance with the system of doctrinal theology. 
But in the next generation the Sublapsarian view was advocated 
by Dr Robert Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury, brother of Archbishop 
Abbot, a very able divine and a thorough Calvinist. His opinion 
upon this point was adopted by Bishop Davenant, and the other 
English delegates to the Synod of Dort ; and Supralapsarianism 
has not again been advocated by any very eminent theologian in 
England except Twisse. The eminent men who most elaborately 
and zealously defended Supralapsarianism in the seventeenth cen- 



* Niemeyer, p. 269. 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. o67 

tury were Gomarus, Twisse, and Voetius, — all of them perhaps 
more distinguished by their erudition, subtlety, and pugnacity, 
than by their comprehensive ability, judgment, and discretion ; 
though they have all rendered very important services to theo- 
logical literature. Gomar, who, when a young man, had visited 
England and studied theology under Whittaker at Cambridge, 
was the zealous opponent of the views which his colleague Arminius 
laboured, at first secretly, and afterwards more publicly, to intro- 
duce into the university of Ley den. He resigned his chair when 
Yorstius was chosen as his colleague upon the death of Arminius ; 
and after officiating for a few years at Saumur, he was settled 
at Groningen, and laboured there as professor of theology and 
Hebrew during the remainder of his life. He was a member of 
the Synod of Dort as one of the Belgic professors, and there he 
openly and strenuously maintained his Supralapsarian views ; and 
though he stood almost alone, he gave a great deal of annoyance 
to the Synod by his vehemence and pertinacity. There were five 
Belgic theological professors members of the Synod, and they 
formed one collegium. Three of them — Polyander, Thysius, and 
Walaeus — entirely concurred in their Judicia on all the five points 
on which the Synod gave a deliverance. The fourth — Sibrandus 
Lubbertus, who, from Dr Balcanquhall's Letters, appears to have 
exhibited a good deal of the temper and spirit of Gomar — gave in 
a separate Judicium of his own, but subscribed also that of his 
three colleagues. Gomar gave in a separate Judicium, differing 
from those of his colleagues and of the great body of the members 
of the Synod, in the one point of asserting the Supralapsarian 
theory as to the object of predestination. 

But the great question is, whether the Synod of Dort gave any 
deliverance upon this point, and if so, what that deliverance was. 
The Synod of Dort, representing as it did almost all the Reformed 
churches, and containing a great proportion of theologians of the 
highest talents, learning, and character, is entitled to a larger 
measure of respect and deference than any other council recorded 
in the history of the church. That the great body of the members 
of the Synod were Sublapsarians is certain. This appears clearly 
from the Judicia of the different colleges, as they were called, of 
the divines who composed it. The collection of these Judicia 
forms the second part of the important work, entitled, " Acta 
Synodi Nationalis Dordrechti habitse," and constitutes the most 



368 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

interesting and valuable discussion that exists of all the leading 
points involved in the controversy between Calvinists and Armi- 
nians. These Judicia all take, more or less explicitly, Sublapsa- 
r-ian ground ; except that of Gomar, and that of the divines of 
South Holland, who leaned to the Supralapsarian side, but thought 
that it was not necessary for the Synod to decide this question, as 
the difference was not very important in itself, and admitted of 
being reconciled by explanations. The Synod seems to have 
adopted this suggestion, and to have abstained from giving a 
formal or explicit deliverance upon the point in dispute, though in 
the general scope and substance of its canons it certainly takes 
Sublapsarian ground. It has been contended, however, that the 
Synod condemned Supralapsarian views; and this question gave rise 
to a very keen controversy, which was carried on for a long time 
by Gomar and Yoet on the one side, and on the other by Maresius 
or Des Marets, who succeeded Gomar as professor of theology 
at Groningen. Yoet, then a young man, was a member of the 
Synod, indeed one of the delegates from South Holland. He lived 
to a great age, surviving all the other members of the Synod, and 
having been for many years professor of theology at Utrecht. 
He became a man of prodigious learning, published many valuable 
works, and was well known beyond the bounds of theological 
literature by the controversies he carried on with Des Cartes. 
Gomar and Voet, who had subscribed the canons of the Synod, 
held their Supralapsarian views to the last ; and while they did 
not deny that the great majority of the members of the Synod 
were Sublapsarians, they maintained that the Synod, in its public 
collective capacity, had done nothing to condemn the opposite 
theory, while Maresius and others asserted that it had. We are 
satisfied that on this point Gomar and Voet have the superiority 
in the argument, and have succeeded in proving that the Synod 
did not intend to frame, and did not frame, their canons so as to 
make it impossible for Supralapsarians honestly and intelligently 
to subscribe them, — that they did not intend to make, and did not 
make, any definite opinion upon this point a term of communion, 
or a ground of exclusion. The ground taken in the canons of the 
Synod is indeed practically and substantially Sublapsarian ; but 
the matter is not put in such a form as necessarily to exclude 
Supralapsarians, who, without straining, can assent to all that is 
in the canons as being true so far as it goes, though they do not 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 309 

regard it as containing a full statement of the whole truth upon 
the subject.* 

The course pursued by the Synod of Dort upon this question 
was just that followed by the Westminster Assembly in the Con- 
fession of Faith which they prepared ; and the mode of dealing 
with this matter adopted by these two most authoritative repre- 
sentatives of Calvinistic theology was, we are persuaded, marked 
by great Christian wisdom. Dr Twisse, the prolocutor or president 
of the Westminster Assembly, died before they had done much, 
if anything, in the way of preparing their Confession. But there 
can be little doubt that his writings must have exerted a consider- 
able influence upon the minds of many, in regard to a point which 
he had elaborated so zealously. Baillie tells us that they had some 
tough debates in the Assembly upon the subject of election, but 
that this matter was at length harmoniously adjusted. As the 
members were all decided Calvinists, these debates must have 
turned only upon such minute and unimportant points as those 
involved in the controversy between the Supralapsarians and the 
Sublapsarians about the object of the decree of predestination; and 
the adjustment was effected, as the result proves, by the omission 
in the Confession of any statement that might be fairly held to 
contain or to imply a denial of Supralapsarianism. There are 
two or three expressions in the canons of the Synod of Dort, which 
Supralapsarians may require to explain, if not to qualify. But 
there is nothing in the Westminster Confession to which they 
would object, while it is also true that there is nothing in it that 
sanctions their peculiar position ; and while it is equally true of it 
as of the canons of Dort, that in developing the scheme of salva- 
tion, it adopts practically and substantially Sublapsarian ground. 
We have no doubt that, as in the case of the Synod of Dort, the 
great majority of the members of the Westminster Assembly were 
Sublapsarians in their own convictions ; while, at the same time, 
they intended to leave this an open question, and framed their 



* The discussions on this subject 
will be found in a Disputatio et Apo- 
logia, subjoined to the collected edi- 
tion of the works of Gomar ; in "Voet's 
" Disputationes Selectse," torn. i. p, 
357, and torn. v. p. 602 ; and in Ma- 
resius's "Theologus Paradoxus," pp. 
97-108. Turretine's assertion, torn. i. 



p. 377, that the Synod of Dort sanc- 
tioned the Sublapsarian doctrine as 
being the more true, and better fitted 
for quieting consciences, and for neu- 
tralizing the objections of adversaries, 
is stronger than a fair view of the 
whole facts of the case, as brought 
out by Gomar and Voet, warrants. 

YOL. I. 24 



370 



CALVIN AND BEZA. 



[Essay VII. 



statements in such a way as to exclude neither party. And this, 
we have no doubt, was the course of true Christian wisdom; because, 
while, on the one hand, Supralapsarians can adduce in support of 
their theory processes of argumentation which do not perhaps easily 
admit of being directly answered, so that some men of speculative 
capacities and tendencies would shrink from meeting the leading 
Supralapsarian position with a direct negation ; yet, on the other 
hand, it is plain that Scripture, in the ordinary current and com- 
plexion of its representations, assumes the fall of man, starts as it 
were from that point, and is chiefly directed to the object of unfold- 
ing the provision made for remedying the effects of the fall, and the 
way in which this provision is brought into full practical operation. 
There has been no discussion upon this subject of any great 
importance since the controversy which was carried on so long 
and so angrily between Yoet and Des Marets, about the middle of 
the seventeenth century. The " Formula Consensus Helvetica," 
adopted as a test of orthodoxy by the Swiss churches in 1675, 
the chief authors of which — Heidegger and Turretine — were de- 
cided Sublapsarians, contains a formal and explicit repudiation of 
Supralapsarianism, thus contrasting unfavourably in point of wis- 
dom and good 'sense with the canons of the Synod of Dort and the 
Confession of the Westminster Assembly. This injudicious pro- 
cedure was the more inexcusable, because those Calvinistic divines 
who would have been most likely to shrink from a formal repu- 
diation of Supralapsarianism, would have been the most strenuous 
opponents of the loose views of the Saumur divines about the im- 
putation of Adam's sin to his posterity and the extent of Christ's 
atonement, against which principally the " Formula Consensus " 
was directed.* Some attention was called to this subject by a dis- 
sertation of Mosheim published in 1724, "De Auctoritate Concilii 
Dordraceni paci sacrse noxia," in which he adduced it as a serious 
charge against the Synod that they had not condemned Supralap- 



* This important document fur- 
nishes another and a worse instance of 
the want of wisdom and foresight 
which has been too often exhibited in 
connection with the preparation and 
imposition of symbolical books. Ca- 
pellus was the colleague of Placseus 
and Amyraldus at Saumur, and in 
condemning the views of Placseus 



about imputation, and of Amyraldus 
about the extent of the atonement, 
they introduced into the Formula, and 
thereby made a term of communion, 
an explicit repudiation of the views of 
Capellus, now almost universally re- 
ceived, about the origin and authority 
of the Hebrew vowel points. 



Essay VII.] 



CALVIN AND BEZA. 



371 



sarian views. An elaborate answer to this dissertation was pub- 
lished in 1726 by Stephanus Vitus, professor in the German 
Reformed Church at Cassel, entitled, "Apologia pro Synodo 
Dordracena," and containing a great deal of curious matter. The 
most important thing, however, in Vitus's "Apologia" is a proof 
— the most full and elaborate with which we are acquainted — that 
Luther, of whom Mosheim professed to be a follower, held as 
high Calvinistic doctrine as the Supralapsarians ; that his fol- 
lowers, in renouncing his Calvinism, had sunk very much to the 
level occupied by Erasmus in his controversy with their master ; 
and that all the attempts which have been made by Lutheran 
writers to disprove these positions have utterly failed. The ques- 
tion that had been agitated about the object of the decree of 
predestination continued to be discussed in systems of theology, 
though rather as a matter connected with the history of the past, 
than as a living, subsisting, subject of controversy ; and for more 
than a century and a half it may be regarded as having become 
practically obsolete.* 



II. The second topic to which w T e proposed to advert, is the 
doctrine of the imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity. 
It has been alleged that, while Beza's views upon this subject 
were distinct and explicit, in full accordance with the higher 
and stricter tenets which have been generally held by Calvinistic 
divines, Calvin's were much more vague and indefinite. It has 
been contended that Calvin's views upon this doctrine were in 
substance the same as those which were put forth by Placseus or 
La Place at Saumur, and condemned by the National Synod of 
the Reformed Church of France in 1644-45, and which have 
been generally regarded by Calvinistic divines as amounting to a 
virtual denial of imputation in the fair and legitimate sense of the 
word. Almost all professing Christians, Romanists and Arminians 



* Those who wish to examine this 
subject upon its merits, will find very- 
able expositions of it, and conclusive 
defences of Sublapsarianism, in Turre- 
tine, loc. iv. qu. ix., and in De Moor's 
Commentarius in Marckii Compen- 
dium, c. vii. sects. 17, 18, torn. ii. 
pp. 63-72. The great storehouse of 
materials on the Supralapsarian side 
is Twisse's Vindicise Gratise, a folio 



volume of 800 pages of close printed 
Latin. Bishop Sanderson tells us that, 
having a great admiration for Twisse, 
and having begun to entertain doubts 
of the truth of the Calvinistic theology, 
in which'he had been trained, he read 
this book through to a syllable. We 
think it somewhat doubtful whether 
any other man ever performed this 
feat. 



372 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

as well as Calvinists, admit what may in some sense or other be 
called the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, — that is, they 
all admit that mankind, the human race, suffer on account of 
Adam's sin, or are placed in a worse position, both with respect to 
character and circumstances, as the result or consequence of that, 
sin, and of the relation in which they stand to him who committed 
it. But there have been great differences of opinion among those 
who professed to believe in divine revelation, both with respect to 
the nature and amount of the deterioration that has taken place 
in men's moral character and spiritual capacities through the fall ; 
and with respect to the nature of the relation subsisting between 
Adam and his posterity, with which this deterioration is admitted 
to be in some way connected. As we have at present to do only 
with differences among men who are substantially Calvinists, we 
may assume upon the first of these points — the nature and amount 
of the deterioration — the truth of the doctrine which is held by 
all Calvinists, and even by the more evangelical Arminians, 
viz. that all men bring with them into the world a thoroughly 
depraved moral nature, — a universal and pervading proneness or 
tendency to sin, — which certainly leads, in the case of every in- 
dividual, to many actual violations of the divine law, which can- 
not be subdued or taken away by any human or created power, 
and which, but for some special extraordinary divine interposi- 
tion, must issue in consigning men to everlasting destruction from 
God's presence. This is the great fundamental doctrine in that 
department of theological science which is now commonly called 
anthropology, or the investigation of what man is. This doctrine 
is just the assertion of a fact with respect to the moral character 
of human nature, or the moral qualities, capacities, and tendencies 
of men as they come into the world. Its truth or falsehood ought 
to be investigated as a matter of fact, by the examination of all 
the evidence, from any quarter, that legitimately bears upon it. 
This great doctrine or fact is clearly revealed to us in the sacred 
Scriptures, but it is not a matter of pure revelation. Something 
may be learned concerning it from an examination of man's con- 
stitution, and from a survey of the doings of men collectively and 
individually ; and all tkat can be learned from these sources — 
from psychology and history, from observation and experience — 
fully accords with, and decidedly confirms, the information given 
us upon the subject in Scripture. Jonathan Edwards' work on 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 373 

" Original Sin " is devoted to the investigation of this great doc- 
trine or fact ; and it certainly establishes its truth or reality, by 
evidence from Scripture, observation, and experience, which never 
has been, and never can be, successfully assailed. 

Now this great doctrine as to what man is, or as to the actual 
moral character of human nature, is evidently, from the nature 
of the case, the fundamental and most important truth upon the 
whole subject to which it relates. It is plainly the most important 
thing that can be known in regard to the natural condition of man, 
the most important both theoretically and practically, in itself, 
in its relation to the general scheme of Christian doctrine, and in 
its bearing upon the duties which men are called upon to discharge. 
All the other questions which have been agitated with respect to 
the natural state and condition of man, may be said to be in some 
sense subordinate and inferior to this one. They respect chiefly 
the origin and cause, the explanation or rationale, of the great fact 
which this doctrine asserts; and therefore they cannot rise in point 
of intrinsic importance to the level of the question as to the reality 
of the fact itself. The matter of fact, when once established by 
its own appropriate evidence, must be admitted to be true, and 
must be dealt with and applied as a reality, even though we knew 
nothing, and had no means of knowing anything, about its origin 
or cause ; and though we were unable to give any explanation or 
solution of difficulties that might be started upon the subject, 
viewed either in its relation to the moral government of God, or 
to the responsibility of man. Upon all these grounds it is of the 
last importance that men — especially those who are called upon 
to instruct others in the way of salvation — should be thoroughly 
established in the assured belief, that we all bring with us into 
the world a thoroughly depraved moral nature, which infallibly 
involves us in violations of the divine law, and subjects us to the 
divine wrath and curse ; and familiar with the whole evidence by 
which the reality of this great fact can be established. 

All Calvinists, many Arminians, and, indeed, we may say 
almost all of whatever name or denomination, who have given 
good evidence that they had honestly submitted their understand- 
ings to the authority of Scripture, and had cordially embraced the 
truth as it is in Jesus, have admitted the truth of this humbling 
and alarming doctrine with respect to the actual moral condition 
of mankind.' There have been considerable differences, indeed, as 



374 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

to what was the most accurate way of stating and applying it. 
But among Calvinists at least — and with them only we have at 
present to do — the differences which have given rise to controversy 
have turned, not upon the nature, import, and evidence of this 
great fact as to what man by nature is, but upon the explanations 
or theories which have been propounded as to its cause, ground, 
or origin ; and especially as to the relation subsisting between 
the first sin of Adam, and the moral character and condition of 
his posterity. All who believe in the moral depravity of human 
nature as an actual feature of character, universally attaching to 
the race, admit, upon the authority of Scripture, that the origin 
of this is to be traced to Adam's sin, and to the connection sub- 
sisting between him and his posterity; and the leading contro- 
versies upon the subject may be said to resolve into these two 
questions : Have we any materials in Scripture that enable us to 
draw out this general idea, of some connection subsisting between 
the sin of Adam and the moral character of his posterity, into 
more distinct and definite positions ? and if so, What are the 
precise positions to which the fair application of these materials 
points ? All the discussions which have taken place among Cal- 
vinists about the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity may 
be ranked under these general heads. The doctrine which has 
been held upon this subject by the great body of Calvinistic 
divines is this, that in virtue of a federal headship or representa- 
tive identity, established by God between Adam and all descend- 
ing from him by ordinary generation, his first sin is imputed to 
them, or put down to their account ; and they are regarded and 
treated by God as if they had all committed it in their own person, 
to the effect of their being subjected to its legal penal conse- 
quences, — so that, in this sense, they may be truly said to have 
sinned in him and fallen with him in his first transgression. Upon 
this theory, the direct and immediate imputation of Adam's first 
sin to his posterity, or the holding them as involved in the guilt or 
reatus of that offence, is regarded as prior in the order of nature 
and causality to the transmission and universal prevalence among 
men of a depraved moral nature, and as being to some extent the 
cause or ground — the rationale or explanation — of the fearful 
fact that man is morally what he is, — a thoroughly ungodly and 
depraved being. The great body of Calvinistic theologians have 
believed that Scripture sufficiently warrants this definite doctrine 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 375 

about the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, or about the 
true character of the relation subsisting between him and them, 
and the bearing of the results of this relation upon their condi- 
tion ; and in this belief we are persuaded they are right. But 
there have been some men who have held Calvinistic views in 
regard to the actual depravity of human nature, and in regard to 
the other departments of Christian truth, who have not been able 
to find in Scripture a sufficient warrant for this doctrine, who 
have in consequence rejected it, and have contented themselves 
with very vague and indefinite views, or with no views at all, 
upon this branch of the subject. And these men have generally 
contended that Calvin himself was of their mind upon this ques- 
tion, and differed from the great body of those who, following 
Beza in this matter, have been generally classed under the name 
of Calvinists. It must be admitted that there is some plausible 
ground for this allegation, though we believe that it cannot be 
substantiated. 

Before proceeding to consider how the case stands upon this 
point, it may be proper to explain somewhat the grounds usually 
taken by those Calvinists who have not concurred with the ordi- 
nary Calvinistic doctrine. In surveying the history of the dis- 
cussions which have taken place upon this subject, we find even 
among the minority of Calvinists who have rejected the generally 
received doctrine of the direct and proper imputation of Adam's 
sin, as the cause or explanation, pro tanto, of the universal pre- 
valence of a depraved moral nature among his posterity, three 
pretty well marked divisions : — 1st, Some simply refuse to receive 
the ordinary Calvinistic doctrine, on the ground that they see no 
sufficient warrant for it in Scripture ; abstain from all further 
discussion ; and profess to receive the fact of universal moral 
depravity, as fully established by its appropriate evidence, with- 
out attempting anything in the way of accounting for it. 2d, 
There are others who, wishing to adhere to the common ortho- 
dox phraseology, profess to admit imputation, but evacuate it or 
explain it away, by distinguishing between an immediate or 
antecedent, and a mediate or consequent, imputation, — rejecting 
the former, which is what Calvinists in general contend for, and 
admitting only the latter, which is not imputation in any true and 
proper sense. 3d, There are some who admit the substance of 
the ordinary orthodox doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin, 



376 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

but who abstain or shrink from the use of the phraseology in 
which orthodox divines have been accustomed to express or em- 
body it. There is no good ground for alleging that Calvin is to 
be ranked with either of the two first of these classes ; but it may 
be contended, with some plausibility, that he might be ranked with 
the third. And, indeed, we are disposed to admit that this is not 
far from the truth, provided the admission be taken with these 
qualifications, — that there is no ground to believe that he denied 
or rejected any part of the doctrine which has been generally 
held by Calvinists on this subject; and that his not employing 
very fully the phraseology commonly used by later Calvinists 
when treating of this matter, is not to be ascribed (as it is in the 
case of some of those whose writings have suggested to us this 
third head in our classification) to his having considered this 
phraseology, and having disliked or disapproved of it, but simply 
to its having never been present to his mind. 

Beza brought out this doctrine of the imputation of Adam's 
sin to his posterity more fully and precisely than it had been 
before. He expounded and developed it more fully than any 
preceding theologian, — both as directly and in itself an element 
in the guilt or reatus of the condition into which the human race 
fell through Adam's transgression, and as the cause, ground, or 
explanation of the actual moral depravity attaching to all men as 
they come into the world. These more precise and definite views 
had not occurred to Calvin, and do not seem to have ever been 
distinctly present to his thoughts. The course which the discus- 
sion of this whole subject took in his time, not only did not tend 
to lead his thoughts in that direction, but tended powerfully to 
lead them in what may be called an opposite one. This is the 
true and full explanation of the want of definiteness and precision 
which, it must be admitted, characterize many of Calvin's state- 
ments about the imputation of Adam's sin viewed as a distinct 
topic of discussion, as compared with the fulness and exactness 
with which it was brought out afterwards ; while there is really 
no reason to doubt that he held the whole substance of the doc- 
trine which has since been generally maintained by Calvinistic 
divines. 

It may be worth while to give some account of the way in 
which this subject was usually discussed in Calvin's time ; as this 
will not only furnish an explanation of the reason why he did not 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 377 

usually give so much prominence as might have been expected 
to the doctrine of imputation, and why he did not always treat 
it with great exactness and precision, but will also expose the 
inaccuracy of a notion which seems to prevail, that this doctrine 
of imputation is a mere Calvinistic peculiarity, — nay, even that 
it is the most extreme, objectionable, and mysterious dogma of 
ultra-Calvinism. 

The doctrine of the fall of the whole human race in Adam was, 
from the beginning, a part of the creed of the universal church ; 
and, from Augustine's time, this had been generally spoken of 
under the designation of the imputation of Adam's sin to his pos- 
terity. Most of the schoolmen continued to use this language, 
though in their hands the doctrine of Augustine was obscured 
and corrupted. The whole subject of original sin was discussed 
at length in the Council of Trent, in the year 1546 ; and, through 
the respect generally professed and entertained for Augustine, 
the deliverance of the Council regarding it was in the main true 
and sound so far as it went, — containing little of positive error, — 
though chargeable with vagueness, obscurity, and much imperfec- 
tion. But the discussion brought out some of the errors which 
had been broached by the schoolmen, and still prevailed exten- 
sively in the Church of Rome. Albertus Pighius, who was one 
of the leading opponents of Calvin, and against whom Calvin's 
two most important controversial treatises — the one on Free-will 
and the other on Predestination — were principally directed, and 
Ambrosius Catharinus, another eminent divine of that period, 
attended the Council of Trent, and took a prominent part in its 
discussions. In the debates on original sin, these two theologians 
zealously maintained the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity ; 
and Catharinus delivered a long address, the substance of which 
is given by Father Paul in his History of the Council,* and in 
which he laboured to establish this doctrine from the testimony of 
Scripture and the authority of Augustine. But then these men 
also maintained that the guilt of Adam's first sin imputed, consti- 
tuted the ivhole of the sinfulness of the estate into which man fell, 
and they denied the transmission of an actually corrupt or de- 
praved moral nature from Adam to his descendants; and as they 
also held a doctrine which had been generally adopted by Eomish 



Lib. ii. s. 65. 



378 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

theologians, and has been formally sanctioned by the Council of 
Trent, — viz. that this imputation of Adam's sin was wholly done 
away in Christ, and that an actual deliverance from it, and all its 
consequences, is communicated to all men in baptism, — they thus 
practically reduced the sinfulness of man's natural condition to 
little or nothing, and deprived it of any great power to impress the 
minds of men. Father Paul tells us that the doctrine of Pighius 
and Catharinus was very well received by many of the bishops ; but 
that, as the authority of most of the theologians was opposed to it, 
they did not venture to adopt and sanction it. The theologians, 
however, who opposed it, did not deny the imputation of Adam's 
sin to his posterity; this was universally admitted ; they maintained 
that this imputation did not constitute the whole of original sin, 
but that there was also, in conjunction and in connection with 
this, the transmission from Adam to his descendants of a deterio- 
rated moral nature. And this view, which certainly could be just 
as conclusively established by testimonies both from the Bible 
and Augustine, prevailed in the Council. Cardinal Bellarmine, 
accordingly,* says, that the doctrine of Pighius and Catharinus 
is partly true and partly false, — true, in so far as it admits the 
imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, — and false, in so far as 
it maintained that this imputation was the whole of original sin, 
and that there was no transmission of a corrupted nature ; and 
then he proceeds to show that this negative portion of their doc- 
trine was a heresy, as being opposed to the decrees of the Council 
of Trent. 

This doctrine of Pighius and Catharinus, which prevailed 
widely in the Church of Kome even after the deliverance of the 
Council, was dealt with by Calvin and the other Reformers very 
much in the same way as by Bellarmine. Since the doctrine of 
the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity was not denied by 
the Church of Rome, and was not rejected but sanctioned, though 
not denned and developed, by the Council of Trent ; and since, 
on the contrary, some of those who were most zealous in main- 
taining it, employed it practically to soften and explain away the 
most important features of the sin and misery of men's natural 
condition, — Calvin was naturally led to give more prominence, in 
his expositions and discussions of this subject, to the transmission 



* De Amissione Gratise et Statu peccati, lib. v. c. 16. 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 379 

and the actual universal prevalence of a depraved moral nature 
than to the imputation of Adam's sin, which was not then a sub- 
ject of controversy. This was the true cause or explanation why 
Calvin was led to make occasionally statements upon this subject, 
which have induced some men to allege that he did not hold the 
imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, but believed the sinful- 
ness of men's natural condition to consist only in the want of 
original righteousness, and in the possession of a depraved moral 
nature, certainly and invariably producing actual transgressions. 

The truth as to Calvin's sentiments upon this subject is in 
substance this : that he has never, directly or by implication, 
denied the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin to his posterity, 
and that he has, on a variety of occasions, plainly enough asserted 
it ; though he has not, from the cause above stated, given it the 
prominence to which, if true, it is entitled, in a systematic exposi- 
tion of the scheme of divine truth, — has not always introduced it 
where, perhaps, we might have expected it to be introduced, and 
has not stated it with so much fulness and precision — especially 
in the aspect of its being regarded as producing, and to some 
extent explaining, the universal prevalence of a depraved moral 
nature — as was done by later Calvinists after this whole matter 
was subjected to a fuller controversial discussion. There is, we 
think, sufficient evidence that this is really the true state of the 
case to be found in the extracts from Calvin, quoted and referred 
to by Turretine ; * and there would be no difficulty in producing 
other passages quite as explicit, and some perhaps still more so, 
from his two treatises on Free-will and Predestination. There is 
no reason, then, to fear that, in maintaining the higher and more 
precise views upon the subject of the imputation of Adam's sin, 
which have been held by the great majority of the ablest and 
most accurate theologians, we may expose ourselves to the risk of 
having the venerable authority of Calvin adduced against us. 

The question as to what were Calvin's views upon the subject 
of the imputation of Adam's sin was first brought into prominence 
by Placaeus, who broached sentiments upon this point differing 
from those which had been generally held by Calvinistic divines, 
and claimed Calvin himself as an authority upon his side. As the 
discussion raised by Placasus forms the most important era in the 



* Loc. ix. q. ix. s. 41. 



380 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

history of this subject, and as his peculiar opinions have received 
some countenance in influential quarters in the present day, it 
may be proper to give some notice of it. Placseus or La Place, 
Amyraldus or Amyraut, and Oappellus or Oappel, were all settled 
in the year 1633 as theological professors in the Protestant Uni- 
versity of Saumur. They were all men of great learning and 
ability, of great industry and activity, and though they did not 
renounce the fundamental principles of the Calvinistic system of 
theology, they exerted an extensive influence in diffusing loose and 
unsound opinions upon some important doctrinal questions, not 
only in France, but over the Reformed churches. Placseus, in a 
Disputation published in the " Theses Salmurienses," — " De statu 
hominis lapsi ante gratiam," — put forth some views on the imputa- 
tion of Adam's sin, which were regarded by many as contradicting 
the doctrine which had been generally professed in the Reformed 
churches. Accordingly, the National Synod held at Charenton in 
December 1644 and January 1645, condemned his book, though 
without mentioning his name, and prohibited the publication of 
the doctrines it advocated. This decree of the Synod led to a 
good deal of controversial discussion. Garisolles, the moderator 
of the Synod, defended it, and answered Placseus's " Disputatio " 
in a work which we have never seen, but which is highly praised 
by Turretine. Andrew Rivet, perhaps the most eminent divine 
of the period, published a defence of the Synod, consisting chiefly 
of extracts from the Reformed confessions, and from all the most 
eminent divines, both of the Reformed and Lutheran churches. 
Most of these extracts were translated and published in the first 
series of the " Princeton Essays." They are a very valuable body 
of testimonies, but there are some of them which can scarcely be 
regarded as sufficiently precise and definite to contradict Placseus's 
position. Placasus defended himself in a very elaborate treatise, 
published in 1665, " De imputatione primi peccati Adami." In 
this w T ork he laboured to show, that his opinion was not inconsistent 
with the generally received doctrine of the Reformed churches ; 
for that they merely asserted the imputation of Adam's sin to his 
posterity, and that he had not denied this, but held it in a certain 
sense. In this work he developed fully the distinction, on which 
chiefly he based his defence, between immediate or antecedent, 
and mediate or consequent, imputation. He rejected the former 
and maintained the latter, and contended that Calvin and other 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 381 

eminent divines concurred in the substance of hisrloctrine, though 
thev had not expressed it in this particular definite form. His 
doctrine is in substance this, that the guilt or reatus of Adam's 
first sin is not imputed to his posterity directly and immediately, 
as a distinct step in the process, — a separate and independent 
element in the sinfulness of the estate into which man fell, — 
having its own proper basis or warrant in the federal relation sub- 
sisting between Adam and his posterity, and affording, by its ante- 
cedence in the order of nature, a basis or explanation for the moral 
depravity which came upon men as a consequence, in the way of 
penal infliction through the withdrawal of divine grace. This is 
the doctrine which has been generally held by Calvinistic divines ; 
but this doctrine Placseus openly and earnestly repudiated. He 
contended that the imputation of Adam's sin is simply a conse- 
quence or result of the moral depravity which is admitted to attach 
to men, in consequence somehow of their connection with Adam, 
but of the existence and transmission of which no explanation is 
given or attempted ; and that all that is meant by the imputation 
of Adam's sin is this, that God — contemplating men as actually 
and already, in virtue of their connection with Adam, subject to 
moral depravity, and involved thereby in actual transgressions of 
His law — resolves, upon this ground, to regard and treat them in 
the same way as Adam by his sin had deserved to be treated. 
God's act in regarding and treating men in the way in which 
Adam deserved to be treated, is thus based upon the medium of 
the previous existence of moral depravity as already an actual 
feature of men's condition, and is a consequence of its universal 
prevalence ; instead of being viewed as an antecedent of this 
depravity in the order of nature, and the ground, and in some 
measure the explanation or rationale, of it. And hence the name 
of mediate and consequent, as distinguished from immediate and 
antecedent, imputation, by which this notion has since Placseus's 
time been commonly designated. 

Independently of the question, which of these doctrines has 
the sanction of Scripture ? — though that of course is the only 
question of vital importance, — it is surely very manifest that it is 
a mere abuse of language to call this notion of Placseus by the 
name of imputation ; that it is not imputation in any real honest 
meaning of the word ; and that he never would have thought of 
calling this imputation, unless he had been tied up by ecclesiastical 



382 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

authority and Ms own voluntary engagements, to maintain that 
in some sense or other Adam's first sin was imputed to his pos- 
terity. It is also very manifest that this doctrine does not give, 
or attempt or profess to give, any account of the origin, or any 
explanation of the cause, of the moral depravity of man, and the 
universality of actual transgression proceeding from it. Nay, it 
precludes any attempt to explain it, however partially, except 
this, that God in mere sovereignty established a constitution, in 
virtue of which it was provided, and did actually result, that all 
men should have transmitted to them the same depraved moral 
nature which Adam brought upon himself by his first sin. And 
there certainly can be nothing which more directly and imme- 
diately than this resolves at once the sin and misery of the human 
race into the purpose and the agency of God. Placseus, more- 
over, brings out very plainly in this work the true character and 
tendency of his peculiar doctrine, and its palpable inconsistency 
with the views which have been generally held by Calvinistic 
divines, by explicitly denying that God made any covenant with 
Adam, or that any federal relation subsisted between him and his 
posterity ; and makes it manifest that his doctrine of imputation, 
falsely so called, at once results from and produces — at once 
flows from and leads to — an entire rejection of the principle of 
Adam's federal or representative headship.* 

This doctrine of Placseus was not adopted by almost any 
divines of eminence wdio really believed in inherent depravity 
as an actual feature of man's moral nature. It was explicitly 
condemned by the churches and divines of Switzerland in the 
" Formula Consenus." It has been made a question among the 
Presbyterians of the United States, though we do not remember 
that the point has been mooted in this country, whether the West- 
minster Confession condemns the view of Placseus ; and the general 
opinion there seems to be, that there is nothing in the Confession 
so precise and definite as to make it unwarrantable for one who 
believes only in mediate and consequent imputation to subscribe 
it. The leading statement upon the subject is thisj — "They (our 
first parents) being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin 
was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature con- 
veyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary gene- 



Pp. 18, 22, 27, 170-2, 245, and 253. f C. v. s. 3. 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 383 

ration." Now this statement, read in the light of the discussions 
which Placceus occasioned, is certainly vague and indefinite, and 
resembles much more closely the deliverances given on this sub- 
ject in the Confession of the sixteenth century than that embodied 
in the Consensus of 1675. The Confession was completed about 
the end of 1646, not quite two years after the National Synod of 
Charenton. It is probable that the members of the Assembly 
were not yet much acquainted with the discussions which had 
being going on in France, and were in consequence not impressed 
with the necessity of being minute and precise in their deliverance 
upon this subject. It is a curious circumstance, that both in the 
Larger and the Shorter Catechisms, there are statements upon 
this point more full and explicit, and more distinctly exclusive of 
the views of Placseus. The Larger Catechism* says, " The cove- 
nant being made with Adam, as a public person, not for himself 
only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by 
ordinary generation sinned in him, and fell with him, in that first 
transgression ;" and both Catechisms, more distinctly than the Con- 
fession, represent the guilt of Adam's first sin as the first, and in 
some sense the leading, element in the sinfulness of man's natural 
condition. More than a year elapsed between the completion of 
the Confession and that of the Catechisms ; and we think it by no 
means unlikely — though we are not aware of any actual historical 
evidence bearing upon the point — that during this interval the 
members of the Assembly may have got fuller information con- 
cerning the bearing of the discussions going on in France, and 
that this may have led them to bring out somewhat more fully 
and explicitly in the Catechisms the views which, in common with 
the great body of Calvinistic divines, they undoubtedly enter- 
tained about the imputation of Adam's sin. Every one who has 
read Placasus's book will see, that he would, without hesitation, 
have subscribed the statement in the Confession, but that he 
would have had extreme difficulty in devising any plausible pre- 
tence for concurring in what has been quoted from the Larger 
Catechism. 

In the seventeenth century this doctrine of Placseus received 
some countenance from Vitringa and Venema. It was adopted 
by Stapfer in his "Theologia Polemica," who, however, when 

* Q. 22. 



384 



CALVIN AND BEZA. 



[Essay VII. 



accused of error on this account, endeavoured to defend himself, 
by maintaining that both views of imputation were sound, — a posi- 
tion which, though in a certain sense it can be defended, was in 
the circumstances a mere evasion of the charge.* From Stapfer 
it was adopted by Jonathan Edwards in his great work on Original 
Sin. Edwards' views, however, upon this point do not seem to 
have been clear or consistent, as he sometimes makes statements 
which manifestly imply or assume the common Calvinistic doc- 
trine, f It is, indeed, plain enough that Edwards had never sub- 
jected this particular topic of imputation to a careful investigation, 
— his work on Original Sin being devoted to the object of estab- 
lishing the doctrine or fact of man's inherent native depravity, an 
object which he has thoroughly and conclusively accomplished. 
Dr Chalmers, in the first volume of his lectures upon the Epistle 
to the Romans, gives some indications that he had adopted this 
doctrine, though he does not bring it out with anything like fulness 
and explicitness. He had evidently, when he published that 
volume, not examined this subject with much care and attention, 
and was probably altogether unacquainted with the discussions 
which had previously taken place among theologians concerning 
it, — which, in all likelihood, was the case also with Edwards. It 
is most gratifying to notice that Dr Chalmers, upon a more careful 
and deliberate study of this subject, renounced the defective and 
erroneous view which he had imbibed from Edwards ; and that in 
his great work, the " Institutes of Theology," he, with the candour 
and magnanimity of a great mind, retracted his error, and sup- 
ported the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin as it has been 
generally held by Calvinistic divines.J 

This doctrine of mediate or consequent imputation — which 
admits imputation only in this sense, that, on account of our 
inherent, moral depravity, as an actual feature of our condition, 
we are regarded and treated by God in the same way as Adam 
had deserved to be treated, in the same way as if we had com- 
mitted Adam's sin — has also been maintained by one of the most 
powerful, brilliant, and valuable writers of the present day, Mr 
Henry Rogers, in a very interesting Essay on the " Genius and 






* Tom. i. p. 236, torn. iv. pp. 
513-14, pp. 561-6. 

t " Princeton Essays," 1st Series, 
p. 151. 



t " Institutes," vol. i. pp. 454-9, 
465-9. 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 385 

Writings of Jonathan Edwards," prefixed to an edition of his 
works published at London, in two volumes, in 1840. His views 
are brought out in the following passages : — 

"We dislike the second term, ' imputation of Adam's sin,' because the word 
imputation is apt to suggest the idea of an arbitrary transfer of the guilt and 
consequent punishment of one moral agent to another moral agent, whose 
moral condition is essentially different. But this is not what is meant by it. 
If we could suppose one of the descendants of Adam born without this depraved 
bias, and actually, when master of his own actions, persevering in unbroken 
obedience to the law of God, then the imputation of Adam's guilt would be 
considered by Calvinists quite as absurd and as unjust as our opponents pro- 
fess now to consider it. All that is meant by the ' imputation of Adam's sin,' 
is that, as in the original constitution of things, Adam and his posterity were 
linked together by an inseparable union, as the root of a tree and its branches ; 
and as the moral state of the latter (as well as their state in every other 
respect) was affected by that of the former, so it was reasonable that Adam 
should be treated as the federal head of his race. They are so far one as to 
warrant similarity of treatment. In this hypothesis the moral state of his 
descendants is not the consequence of the imputation of Adam's sin, but pre- 
supposed as the reason of such imputation, and as prior to it in the order of 
nature. They are treated as he is because they are presupposed to be, and are 
really, morally like him. Thus, the great, and we may say the sole difficulty, 
is to reconcile it with justice, that the destinies of our race should be linked 
in a chain of mutual dependence with those of our first father ; that not only 
our physical condition (a fact universally admitted), but that our moral con- 
dition should take its complexion from his own ; that as he was, we should be ; 
that if he fell, and as a consequence became mortal, we should fall with him, 
and become mortal too. Such a constitution, however, of course, presupposes 
the state of Adam's descendants to correspond with his own ; and the imputa- 
tion of Adam's sin means nothing more than that they are treated as Adam was, 
simply because they are virtually in the same condition with him. According 
to this doctrine, therefore, the real difficulty is not to reconcile the imputation 
of sin and guilt where there is no sin and guilt at all (for that is not the case 
supposed), but to vindicate the reasonableness of a constitution by which one 
being becomes depraved by his dependence on another who is so, or by which 
the moral condition of one being is remotely determined by the moral condi- 
tion of another. Such is the doctrine when freed from all theological techni- 
calities ; and the more we consider it, the more we shall perceive that the sole 
difficulty is the one we have mentioned. 

" Such is the explication of the doctrine of Original Sin, which, it will be 
seen, does not, as is so often represented, imply the arbitrary. imputation of the 
guilt of one moral agent to another in no sense guilty ; and then an equally 
arbitrary infliction of punishment. But, presupposing the moral state of 
Adam's descendants to resemble his own, and to necessitate, therefore, the 
same treatment, it represents it as just to deal with us as in our great pro- 
VOL. I. 25 



386 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

genitor, as virtually one with him, as grafted on his stock, as bound up in his 
destinies. 

" It will be seen by the defence we have just made, that we should not 
choose to attempt to vindicate, by direct argument, that constitution by which 
the moral destinies of one being are, in fact, entrusted to the keeping of 
another. This is one of the mysteries about which, in our present state, it is 
in vain to reason. The difficulty is to be met simply by appealing, in the first 
instance, to the facts which prove such a constitution, and then by showing 
that the very same difficulty presses on any hypothesis that can be adopted 
on this subject, and, indeed, may be objected to all the proceedings of God 
towards this lower universe — consequently can never be conclusive against the 
Calvinistic doctrine of Original Sin."* 

Mr Eogers is rather stating his doctrine than expounding and 
defending it ; and for this, as well as for other reasons, it would 
be out of place to enter here upon a full discussion of it. But 
there are some obvious reflections suggested by these extracts, 
which we may state, without enlarging upon them. It is a some- 
what peculiar procedure on the part of Mr Rogers, virtually to 
give his definition or description of the imputation of Adam's sin, 
as if it were the only true and sound one, and that which was 
generally adopted by Calvinistic divines. Mr Rogers adopts the 
mediate and consequent imputation of Placseus, — a view which is 
neither accordant with the natural ordinary meaning of the word, 
nor with the doctrine that has been held by the generality of ortho- 
dox theologians. His whole statement is plainly fitted to convey the 
impression that this, and this alone, is, and should be, recognised 
as the true Calvinistic doctrine, — any other notion which the word 
imputation might suggest, and which may have been put forth in 
some quarters, being merely an unwarranted misrepresentation, 
repudiated by the judicious friends of the doctrine itself. Now, 
this is certainly a very erroneous impression concerning the actual 
facts of the case ; for it can scarcely be disputed, that the doctrine 
of immediate and antecedent imputation, which he brings in as if 
it were merely a misrepresentation of opponents, and which he 
himself misrepresents, especially by the application of the word 
"arbitrary," — an epithet which Arminians are so much in the 
habit of brandishing against all the doctrines of Calvinism, — has 
been explicitly maintained by the great body of the ablest Cal- 
vinistic divines who have flourished since Placseus's time. 



Essay xl.-xlii. 



, 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 387 

The doctrine concerning the imputation of Adam's sin is not 
to be settled, as Mr Rogers seems to assume, by laying down an 
arbitrary definition, warranted neither by the natural proper mean- 
ing of the words, nor by the prevailing usus loquendi among 
theologians. It can be determined only by an examination of 
Scripture, by ascertaining what it is that Scripture asserts or indi- 
cates concerning the actual relation subsisting betw r een Adam and 
his descendants, — the real bearing of his first sin upon the moral 
condition of his posterity. Placasus, the great champion, if not 
the inventor, of Mr Rogers's notion of imputation, undertook to 
show that there was nothing in Scripture to warrant any other 
idea of wdiat might be called the imputation of Adam's sin to his 
posterity, except this, " that because of the sin inherent in us from 
our origin, we are deserving of being treated in the same way as 
if we had committed that offence."* But most Calvinistic divines 
have maintained that this position, though true so far as it goes, 
does not embody the whole truth ; that Scripture gives us some- 
what fuller and more definite information upon the subject, and 
warrants us to believe that Adam was constituted the covenant- 
head, or federal representative, of his posterity, — God having 
resolved to make the trial or probation of Adam the trial or pro- 
bation of the human race ; that thus they sinned in him, and fell 
with him in his first transgression ; and that thus the sin and 
misery of their natural condition assumes the character of a penal 
infliction, to which they are subjected because involved in the guilt 
of Adam's first sin imputed to them, or put down to their account. 
Whether Scripture does warrant and require us to believe this, is 
a question on which there is room for a difference of opinion. If 
it does not, then we must fall back upon the mediate or consequent 
imputation of Placasus and Mr Rogers. But if we were satisfied 
that this is the true state of the case, w T e w r ould scarcely be con- 
tented with " disliking," as Mr Rogers confesses he does, " the 
term, imputation of Adam's sin ;" nor would w T e attempt to explain 
it away by an arbitrary and unwarranted definition : we would 
reject it altogether as improper and unsuitable, fitted only to 
convey an erroneous impression. 

Mr Rogers has not entered into any examination of the scrip- 
tural grounds by which this question should be determined, and 



* " Theses Salmur." P. i. p. 206. 



388 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

neither can we at present advert to them. We can only assert 
that, for above two hundred years past, the generality of the most 
eminent Calvinistic divines have contended, that the doctrine of 
immediate and antecedent imputation is taught in the natural and 
obvious meaning of the apostle's statements in the fifth chapter 
of the Epistle to the Romans, and is only confirmed by the most 
thorough, searching, critical investigation of their import; while 
it is also in full accordance with the whole history of God's 
dealings with the human race, and with the principles by which 
they have been regulated, — and especially with the great prin- 
ciple of covenant-headship and federal representation, so plainly 
exhibited in God's arrangements with respect to the recovery as 
well as the ruin of mankind. We have admitted that the great 
doctrine or fact of the transmission from Adam, and the actual 
prevalence among all his descendants, of a depraved moral nature, 
is of more intrinsic and fundamental importance, in itself and its 
consequences, viewed both theoretically and practically, than any 
particular tenet as to the cause, or ground, or rationale of this 
state of things can be. But this does not in the least affect our 
obligation to ascertain and to proclaim all that Scripture makes 
known to us on the subject. We admit, also, that the evidence 
of this great fact from Scripture, confirmed as it is by the testi- 
mony of observation and experience, is more varied, abundant, 
and conclusive than can be adduced in support of the doctrine 
of the imputation of Adam's sin, as it has been usually held by 
Calvinists. But the evidence for this doctrine is, we believe, 
sufficient and satisfactory ; and if so, men are bound to receive 
it. It certainly cannot be legitimately set aside by anything but 
a disproof of the scriptural evidence on which it is professedly 
based ; and this, we are persuaded, has not been and cannot be 
produced. 

Mr Rogers represents it as a great advantage of his virtual 
denial of imputation, by resolving it into what is only mediate and 
consequent upon the existence of depravity as an actual feature of 
human nature, that it leaves only one difficulty unsolved, — viz. 
" to vindicate the reasonableness of a constitution by which one 
being becomes depraved by his dependence on another;" and he 
plainly insinuates that any other doctrine upon the subject must 
be attended with additional and more formidable difficulties. 

The substance of the only answer he attempts to this difficulty 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 389 

is, that the matter of fact as to man's natural condition is conclu- 
sively established by its appropriate evidence, and must therefore 
be received as true, and, of course, consistent with God's attri- 
butes and moral government, however great may be the difficulties 
attaching to it. This answer we admit to be quite sufficient and 
satisfactory ; but we contend that the doctrine of imputation, in 
the only true and fair sense of the word, — the doctrine of imme- 
diate and antecedent imputation, — does not introduce any addi- 
tional difficulty into the investigation of this subject, and upon 
the whole rather tends to diminish or alleviate the admitted 
difficulty, than to strengthen or aggravate it. It is a principle 
of the greatest value and importance in the consideration of the 
difficulties attaching to speculations on religious subjects, and 
especially in dealing with the objections commonly directed against 
Calvinism, that the difficulties or objections really apply, not to 
particular doctrines or representations, but to actual facts or results, 
which are admitted, or can be proved, to exist or to take place 
under God's moral government. This principle applies equally 
to the views generally held amongst us with respect to the fall 
of mankind in Adam, and their salvation through Christ. The 
great, the only difficulty, in the one case is, that all men come 
into the world with morally depraved, natures, which certainly and 
invariably involve them in actual violations of the divine law, and 
thus subject them to punishment ; and in the other case, that of 
the whole human race thus involved in sin and misery, some only 
are saved from this condition and the rest perish, while this 
difference in the result cannot be fully explained by anything in 
men themselves, or by anything they have done or can do, but 
must be referred ultimately to the good pleasure of God. These 
are actual facts or results which can be conclusively proved, and 
must therefore be admitted to be true. It is with the fall alone 
we have at present to do ; and here the great, the only real 
difficulty is, the universality of depravity, with its certain and 
invariable consequences. This we undertake to prove to be an 
actual matter of fact. If its truth be denied, we must stop, and 
before proceeding further we must establish it, for it is the great 
fundamental position with respect to the moral condition of man- 
kind. But it is admitted by all Calvinists, and we have to do at 
present only with differences subsisting among them, — differences 
which we are persuaded do not and cannot seriously affect, either 



390 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

in the way of alleviation or aggravation, the difficulties attaching 
to the admitted fact. 

Some Calvinists — agreeing in this with those more evangelical 
Arminians who admit the great fact of the universal native de- 
pravity of mankind — contend that, beyond establishing the reality 
of the fact, Scripture gives us no further information on the 
subject, except this, that this depravity was transmitted by Adam 
to all his posterity, and that it is in some way or other to be traced 
to the relation subsisting between him and his descendants. They 
stop here, because they think that Scripture goes no further, and 
because they have a vague notion — which Mr Rogers appears to 
sanction — that to go any further would involve them in new and 
additional difficulties ; though there really can be no greater diffi- 
culty than what stands out palpably on the face of the fact itself. 
They usually allege, that Scripture makes known to us no other 
relation as subsisting between Adam and the human race, except 
that they are all his natural descendants ; while in connection with 
this they admit, that God had established a constitution or arrange- 
ment, in virtue of which all Adam's descendants were in point of 
fact to have the same moral character into which he fell by his 
first sin. This constitution or arrangement of God, in virtue of 
which Adam transmitted to all his descendants the same depravity 
of moral nature which he brought upon himself, is of course 
admitted by all who, upon the authority of revelation, believe in the 
depravity of the human race. But it manifestly does not furnish, 
or appear or profess to furnish, any explanation or solution of the 
one great difficulty; which consists essentially in this, that God 
appears to be represented as the author or cause of the sin and 
misery of mankind. The admission of this divine constitution is 
really nothing more in substance than an assertion of the matter 
of fact, as a matter of fact ; and then tracing the fearful result, 
directly and immediately, to a purpose and appointment of God. 
The view held by a certain section of Calvinists, from Placseus to 
Mr Rogers, — denying the imputation of Adam's sin in any fair and 
legitimate sense of the expression, and. reducing it to a mere name 
or nonentity, — implies that Scripture makes known to us no other 
relation, no other kind of unity or identity, as subsisting between 
Adam and the human race, except that of progenitor and posterity 
— the unity or identity of a father with his descendants; and this 
is simply asserting, in another form, the mere fact of the actual 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 391 

transmission of a depraved nature, as the result of a constitution 
or arrangement which God has established. This view of the 
matter leaves the difficulty just where it found it. It interposes 
nothing whatever between the result and the exercise of the 
divine sovereignty ; it does nothing whatever towards explaining 
or vindicating that divine constitution or arrangement under 
which the result has taken place. At the same time, it is to be 
remembered that it is universally admitted that this relation of 
progenitor and posterity, this species of oneness or identity, does 
subsist between Adam and his descendants, — that it is in no way 
inconsistent with the more strict and definite views of imputation 
which have been held by the generality of Calvinists, — and that 
in so far as it can be made available or useful in the exposition of 
this subject, this advantage belongs equally to those who believe, 
and to those who deny, the generally received doctrine of im- 
putation; while those who deny it have nothing else whatever to 
adduce in explanation or defence of their position. 

If Scripture gives us no further information upon this subject, 
then we must stop here, and — in dealing with the objections of 
opponents — take our stand upon the position, that the fact of the 
fall and the depravity of the human race has been conclusively 
proved, and must therefore be received as true. This ground is 
common to all who admit depravity, and it is sufficient to dispose 
of the difficulty. But Calvinists in general have contended, that 
Scripture does give us some additional information upon this 
subject; and that this additional information — while certainly 
not furnishing a solution of the difficulty, which all admit to be 
insoluble — introduces no additional difficulty, and not only does 
not aggravate the difficulty admitted to exist, but rather tends to 
alleviate it. The peculiarity of the doctrine of imputation, — im- 
mediate and antecedent imputation, — as held by the generality of 
Calvinists, consists in this, that it brings in another relation besides 
that of mere natural descent as subsisting between Adam and his 
posterity — another species of oneness or identity between them, 
viz. that of covenant-headship or federal representation. Their 
doctrine is, that God made a covenant with Adam, and that in 
this covenant Adam represented his posterity, the covenant being 
made not only for him but for them, — including them as well as 
him in its provisions. The proper result of this was, that, while 
there was no actual transfer to them of the moral culpability or 



392 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

blameworthiness of his sin, they became, in consequence of his 
failure to fulfil his covenant engagements, rei } — or incurred reatus, 
or guilt in the sense of legal answerableness, — to this effect, that 
God, on the ground of the covenant, regarded and treated them 
as if they themselves had been guilty of the sin whereby the 
covenant was broken, and that in this way they became legally 
involved in all the natural and penal consequences which Adam 
brought upon himself by his first sin. Now this doctrine — -view- 
ing it merely as a hypothesis, and independently of the actual 
support it receives from Scripture — neither introduces any new 
difficulty into the investigation, nor aggravates the difficulty which 
all admit to exist. It does not in any respect make more sinful 
or miserable the actual condition of the human race as a reality 
or matter of fact, and it does not ascribe anything to God which 
appears more liable to objection or more incapable of explanation, 
by bringing His agency more closely into contact with the actual 
result of the sin and misery of mankind. On the contrary, it 
rather tends to alleviate the difficulty, and to throw some light 
upon this mysterious transaction, by bringing it somewhat into 
the line of the analogy of transactions which we can comprehend 
and estimate, and illustrating its accordance with great general 
principles, which are exhibited, not only. in God's ordinary provi- 
dence, but specially and emphatically in the scheme of salvation 
by a Eedeemer. 

The great difficulty of course is to explain how, consistently 
with God's attributes and man's responsibility, the human race 
could come to be placed in a condition of sin and misery, without 
any apparent adequate ground in justice for their being so treated. 
And we think it by no means unlikely, that to a man reflecting 
upon this state of things as an ascertained reality, — even while he 
knew nothing of the information given as concerning it in Scrip- 
ture, — the idea might occur, that the best and most satisfactory 
way of getting to anything like an explanation of it would be, if 
it could be shown to be of the nature of a penal infliction upon the 
human race — an evil that had come upon them as a punishment 
of actual sin committed. There is no great difficulty in believing, 
that the moral depravity of Adam's own nature was a penal in- 
fliction upon him, through the withdrawal of the Divine Spirit — 
a punishment to which he was justly subjected on account of 
his first sin ; and we cannot but feel, that if this idea of legal 






Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 393 

responsibility could in any way be introduced, and could in any 
measure be applied to the human race as a whole in connection 
with Adam, it would tend somewhat to alleviate or lighten the 
difficulty attaching to this mysterious and incomprehensible sub- 
ject. Now, this is precisely what Scripture, according to the 
views of the defenders of the ordinary Calvinistic doctrine of im- 
putation, does in the matter ; this is the very service it renders, by 
leading us to believe, that God resolved to make the trial or pro- 
bation of Adam the trial or probation of the human race, — that 
the covenant which He made with Adam comprehended all his 
posterity, — and that it laid a foundation for a legal or federal one- 
ness or identity between him and them. The doctrine that Adam 
was the federal head or representative of his posterity in the cove- 
nant, lays a foundation for the imputation — the immediate and 
antecedent imputation — to them of the guilt or reatus of his first 
sin; and this imputation furnishes a ground for dealing with them 
as if they had committed that sin themselves, and thus involving 
them in the penal results which Adam brought upon himself by 
his own sin. There are thus interposed several steps between the 
actual moral character and condition of mankind and the mere 
sovereign purpose and agency of God ; and these steps interposed, 
while they do not solve the difficulty, do not introduce into it any 
additional darkness or perplexity. On the contrary, being in 
accordance with analogies furnished by God's ordinary providence 
and by human jurisprudence, as well as by the arrangements of 
the scheme of redemption, they tend somewhat to relieve and 
satisfy the mind in the contemplation of this great mystery. 

There are many persons — and Mr Rogers is evidently one of 
them — who have a strong prejudice against this doctrine of the 
imputation of the guilt or reatus of Adam's first sin to his pos- 
terity, as if it brought in some new and additional difficulties into 
the investigation of this subject, — as if it were the most myste- 
rious and incomprehensible dogma of ultra-Calvinism, one which 
all moderate and reasonable Calvinists must repudiate. But if 
the considerations we have hinted at were duly weighed, this 
unfounded prejudice might possibly be removed ; and it might be 
expected, that all men who admit the total depravity of human 
nature as an actual feature of man's condition, of wdiich they can 
give us no account or explanation whatever, w T ould be more likely 
to yield to the weight of the evidence — quite sufficient, we think, 



394 



CALVIN AND BEZA. 



[Essay VII. 



though not overwhelming — which Scripture furnishes in proof of 
the doctrine, that "the covenant being made with Adam, as a 
public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all man- 
kind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, 
fell with him in his first transgression." 

Among the three different classes or sections into which we 
divided those divines who, while admitting the universal de- 
pravity of the human race, declined to admit the orthodox doc- 
trine of imputation, one consisted of those who rejected the 
ordinary orthodox phraseology, yet so far deferred to the authority 
of Scripture as to receive, though in a confused and inconsistent 
way, some part of the doctrine which they professed to reject. 
This has appeared most prominently and palpably among the 
New England Congregation alists and some of the New School 
Presbyterians in the United States ; though there have been fre- 
quent indications of it among men who were fond of deviating 
from the old beaten paths, and aspired to be thought reasonable, 
moderate, and liberal. This is a curious and important feature 
of the controversy, and furnishes some interesting materials in 
confirmation of the old orthodox faith. An admirable specimen 
of what can be done in this department will be found in a 
crushing exposure, by Dr Hodge, of Princeton, of the inconsis- 
tency and confusion exhibited by Professor Moses Stuart, of 
Andover, in his commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans.* 

We have dwelt so long upon these two subjects, that we must 
be very brief upon the remaining two ; and, indeed, must confine 
ourselves to a mere statement as to what Calvin's sentiments upon 



* Hodge's Essays and Reviews, p. 
49. 

On this subject of imputation, as 
well as on the former one of the con- 
troversy between the Supralapsarians 
and the Sublapsarians, the best ex- 
position of the whole matter, and the 
best defence of the generally received 
orthodox doctrine, in a compendious 
form, and in books easily accessible, 
will be found in Turretine and De 
Moor. Turretine, Loc. ix. and Qu. 
ix., and De Moor, c. xv. s. 32, torn, 
iii. pp. 260-287. De Moor, as usual, 
gives numerous references to authori- 
ties. He gives also a very choice and 
valuable collection of extracts from 



standard divines in exposition and de- 
fence of the orthodox doctrine. There 
is a great deal of important matter, 
both argumentative and historical, on 
various departments of this contro- 
versy, in a very valuable series of ar- 
ticles on original sin and the doctrine 
of imputation contained in the first 
series of the " Princeton Essays." Al- 
most everything that can be said in 
defence of mediate and coDsequent im- 
putation and in opposition to imputa- 
tion, in the only fair and legitimate 
.sense of it as generally held by Calvin- 
istic divines, will be found in Placseus's 
treatise alreadv referred to. 






Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 395 

these two topics really were, without digressing into the more 
general history of the controversies concerning them. 

III. It has been contended very frequently, and very confi- 
dently, that Calvin did not sanction the views which have been 
generally held by Calvinistic divines, in regard to the extent of 
the atonement, — that he did not believe in the doctrine of par- 
ticular redemption, that is, that Christ did not die for all men, 
but only for the elect, for those who are actually saved, — but that, 
on the contrary, he asserted a universal, unlimited, or indefinite 
atonement. Amyraut, in defending his doctrine of universal 
atonement in combination with Calvinistic views upon other points, 
appealed confidently to the authority of Calvin ; and, indeed, he 
wrote a treatise entitled, "Eschantillon de la Doctrine de Calvin 
touchant la Predestination," chiefly for the purpose of showing 
that Calvin supported his views about the extent of the atonement, 
and was in all respects a very moderate Calvinist. Daillee, in his 
" Apologia pro duabus Synodis," which is a very elaborate defence, 
in reply to Spanheim, of Amyraut's views about universal grace 
and universal atonement, fills above forty pages with extracts from 
Calvin as testimonies in his favour. Indeed, the whole of the last 
portion of this work of Daillee, consisting of nearly five hundred 
pages, is occupied with extracts, produced as testimonies in favour 
of universal grace and universal atonement, from almost every 
eminent writer, from Clemens Romanus down to the middle of 
the seventeenth century ; and we doubt if the whole history of 
theological controversy furnishes a stronger case of the adduction 
of irrelevant and inconclusive materials. It was chiefly the survey 
of this vast collection of testimonies that suggested to us the ob- 
servations which we have laid before our readers in our discussion 
of the views of Melancthon.* 

It is certain that Beza held the doctrine of particular redemp- 
tion, or of a limited atonement, as it has since been held by most 
Calvinists, and brought it out fully in his controversies with the 
Lutherans on the subject of predestination ; though he was not, 
as has sometimes been asserted, the first who maintained it. It 
has been confidently alleged that Calvin did not concur in this 
view, but held the opposite doctrine of universal redemption and 



* Supra, p. 205. 



396 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

unlimited atonement. Now it is true that we do not find in 
Calvin's writings explicit statements as to any limitation in the 
object of the atonement, or in the number of those for whom 
Christ died; and no Calvinist, not even Dr Twisse, the great 
champion of high Supralapsarianism, has ever denied that there is 
a sense in which it may be affirmed that Christ died for all men. 
But we think it is likewise true, that no sufficient evidence has 
been produced that Calvin believed in a universal or unlimited 
atonement. Of all the passages in Calvin's writings, bearing 
more or less directly upon this subject, which we remember to 
have read or have seen produced on either side, there is only one 
which, with anything like confidence, can be regarded as formally 
and explicitly denying an unlimited atonement ; and notwithstand- 
ing all the pains that have been taken to bring out the views of 
Calvin upon this question, we do not recollect to have seen it 
adverted to except by a single Popish writer. It occurs in his 
treatise " De vera participatione Christi in coena," in reply to 
Heshusius, a violent Lutheran defender of the corporal presence 
of Christ in the Eucharist. The passage is this : — " Scire velim 
quomodo Christi carnem edant impii pro quibus non est crucifixa, 
et quomodo sanguinem bibant qui expiandis eorum peccatis non 
est effusus."* This is a very explicit denial of the universality 
of the atonement. But it stands alone — so far as we know — in 
Calvin's writings, and for this reason we do not found much upon 
it ; though at the same time we must observe, that it is not easy to 
understand how, if Calvin really believed in a universal atonement 
for the human race, such a statement could ever have dropped 
from him. We admit, however, that he has not usually given any 
distinct indication that he believed in any limitation as to the 
objects of the atonement ; and that, upon a survey of all that has 
been produced from his writings, there is fair ground for a 
difference of opinion as to what his doctrine upon this point really 
was. The truth is, that no satisfactory evidence has been or can 
be derived from his writings, that the precise question upon the 
extent of the atonement which has been mooted in more modern 
times, in the only sense in which it can become a question among 
men who concur in holding the doctrine of unconditional personal 
election to everlasting life, ever exercised Calvin's mind, or was 



* Tractatus Theologici. Opera, torn. ix. p. 731, 



Essay VII.] 



CALVIN AND BEZA. 



397 



made by him the subject of any formal or explicit deliverance. 
The topic was not then formally discussed as a distinct subject 
of controversy ; and Calvin does not seem to have been ever led, 
in discussing cognate questions, to take up this one and to give 
a deliverance regarding it. We believe that no sufficient evidence 
has been brought forward that Calvin held that Christ died for 
all men, or for the whole world, in any such sense as to warrant 
Calvinistic universalists — -that is, men who, though holding Cal- 
vinistic doctrines upon other points, yet believe in a universal 
or unlimited atonement— in asserting that he sanctioned their 
peculiar principles. 

It is true that Calvin has intimated more than once his con- 
viction, that the position laid down by some of the schoolmen, viz. 
that Christ died " sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis," 
is sound and orthodox in some sense. But then he has never, so far 
as we remember or have seen proved, explained precisely in what 
sense he held it, and there is a sense in which the advocates of 
particular redemption can consistently admit and adopt it. # It 
is true also, that Calvin has often declared, that the offers and 
invitations of the gospel are addressed by God, and should be 
addressed by us, indiscriminately to all men, without distinction or 
exception ; and that the principal and proximate cause why men 
to whom the gospel is preached finally perish, is their own sin and 
unbelief in putting away from them the word of life. But these 
are principles which the advocates of particular redemption believe 
to be true, and to be vitally important; and which they never 
hesitate to apply and to act upon. It is quite fair to attempt to 
deduce an argument in favour of the doctrine of a universal atone- 
ment from the alleged impossibility of reconciling the doctrine 
of an atonement, limited as to its objects or destination in God's 
purpose or intention, with the universal or unlimited offers and 
invitations of the gospel, or with the ascription of men's final 



* When the subject of the extent 
of the atonement came to be more 
fully and exactly discussed, orthodox 
Calvinists generally objected to adopt 
this scholastic position, on the ground 
that it seemed to imply an ascription 
to Christ of a, purpose or intention of 
dying in some sense for all men. For 
this reason they usually declined to 
adopt it as it stood, or they proposed 



to alter it into this form, — Christ's 
death was sufficient for all, efficacious 
for the elect. By this change 4n the 
position, the question was made to 
turn, not on what Christ did, but on 
what His death was ; and thus the 
appearance of ascribing to Him per- 
sonally a purpose or intention of 
dying, in some sense, for all men, 
was removed. 



398 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

condemnation to their own sin and unbelief. But as the generality 
of the advocates of a limited atonement deny that the inconsis- 
tency of these two things, or the impossibility of reconciling them, 
can be proved, and profess to hold both, it is quite unwarrantable 
to infer, in regard to any particular individual, that because he 
held the one, he must be presumed to have rejected the other. 
And there is certainly nothing in Calvin's general character and 
principles, or in anything he has written, which affords ground 
for the conclusion, that the alleged impossibility of reconciling 
these two things would, had he been led to investigate the matter 
formally, have perplexed him much, or have tempted him to 
embrace the doctrine of universal atonement, which is certainly 
somewhat alien, to say the least, in its general spirit and com- 
plexion, to the leading features of his theological system. And 
this consideration is entitled to the more weight for this reason, 
that this difficulty is not greater than some others with which he 
did grapple, and which he disposed of in a different and more 
scriptural way, — or rather, is just the very same difficulty, put in 
a different form, and placed in a somewhat different position. 

There is not, then, we are persuaded, satisfactory evidence that 
Calvin held the doctrine of a universal, unlimited, or indefinite 
atonement. And, moreover, we consider ourselves warranted in 
asserting, that there is sufficient evidence that he did not hold this 
doctrine ; though on the grounds formerly explained, and with 
the one exception already adverted to, it is not evidence which 
bears directly and immediately upon this precise point. The 
evidence of this position is derived chiefly from the two following 
considerations : — 

1st, Calvin consistently, unhesitatingly, and explicitly denied 
the doctrine of God's universal grace and love to all men, — that is, 
omnibus et singulis, to each and every man, — as implying in some 
sense a desire or purpose or intention to save them all ; and with 
this universal grace or love to all men the doctrine of a universal 
or unlimited atonement, in the nature of the case, and in the 
convictions and admissions of all its supporters, stands inseparably 
connected. That Calvin denied the doctrine of God's universal 
grace or love to all men, as implying some desire or intention 
of saving them all, and some provision directed to that object, is 
too evident to any one who has read his writings, to admit of 
doubt or to require proof. We are not aware that the doctrine 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 399 

of a universal atonement ever has been maintained, even by men 
who were in other respects Calvinistic, except in conjunction and 
in connection with an assertion of God's universal grace or love 
to all men. And it is manifestly impossible that it should be 
otherwise. If Christ died for all men, — pro omnibus et singulis, 
— this must have been in some sense an expression or indication 
of a desire or intention on the part of God, and of a provision 
made by Him, directed to the object of saving them all, though 
frustrated in its effect, by their refusal to embrace the provision 
made for and offered to them. A universal atonement, or the 
death of Christ for all men, — that is, for each and every man, — 
necessarily implies this, and would be an anomaly in the divine 
government without it. No doubt it may be said that the doctrine 
of a universal atonement necessitates, in logical consistency, a 
denial of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, as much as it neces- 
sitates an admission of God's universal grace or love to all men; 
and we believe this to be true. But still, when we find that, in 
point of fact, none has ever held the doctrine of universal atone- 
ment without holding also the doctrine of universal grace, — while 
it is certain that some men of distinguished ability and learning, 
such as Amyraut and Daillee, Davenant and Baxter, have held 
both these doctrines of universal atonement and universal grace, 
and at the same time have held the Calvinistic doctrine of elec- 
tion, — we are surely called upon in fairness and modesty to admit, 
that the logical connection cannot be quite so direct and certain 
in the one case as in the other. And then this conclusion warrants 
us in maintaining, that the fact of Calvin so explicitly denying the 
doctrine of God's universal grace or love to all men, affords a more 
direct and certain ground for the inference, that he did not hold 
the doctrine of universal atonement, than could be legitimately 
deduced from the mere fact, that he held the doctrine of uncondi- 
tional personal election to everlasting life. The invalidity of the 
inferential process in the one case is not sufficient to establish its 
invalidity in the other ; and therefore our argument holds good. 

2d, The other consideration to which we referred, as affording 
some positive evidence, though not direct and explicit, that Calvin 
did not hold the doctrine of a universal atonement, is this, — that 
he has interpreted some of the principal texts on which the advo- 
cates of that doctrine rest it, in such a way a*s to deprive them of 
all capacity of serving the purpose to which its supporters com- 



400 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

monly apply them. If this position can be established, it will 
furnish something more than a presumption, and will ' almost 
amount to a proof, that he did not hold the doctrine in question. 
As this point is curious and interesting, we may adduce an in- 
stance or two in support of our allegation. In commenting upon 
1 Tim. ii. 4, " Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to 
the knowledge of the truth," Calvin says: " Apostolus simpliciter 
intelligit nullum mundi vel populum vel ordinem a salute excludi, 
quia omnibus sine exceptione evangelium proponi Deus velit. Est 
autem evangelii prsedicatio vivifica, merito itaque colligit Deum 
omnes pariter salutis participatione dignare. At de hominum 
generibus, non singulis personis, sermo est ; nihil enim aliud in- 
tendit quam principes et extraneos populos in hoc numero inclu- 
dere." Again, in commenting upon 1 John ii. 2, " And He is the 
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins 
of the whole world," he says : " Qui hanc absurditatem (universal 
salvation) volebant effugere, dixerunt sufficientur pro toto mundo 
passum esse Christum, sed pro electis tantum efficaciter. Vulgo 
hsec solutio in scholis obtinuit. Ego quanquam verum esse illud 
dictum fateor, nego tamen prsesenti loco quadrare. Neque enim 
aliud fuit consilium Joannis quam toti ecclesise commune facere 
hoc bonum. Ergo sub omnibus reprobos non comprehendit, sed 
eos designat qui simul credituri erant, et qui per varias mundi 
plagas dispersi erant." He gives the very same explanation of 
these two passages in his treatise on "Predestination."* Now 
this is in substance just the interpretation commonly given of 
these and similar texts by the advocates of the doctrine of parti- 
cular redemption; and it seems scarcely possible that it should 
have been adopted by one who did not hold that doctrine, or who 
believed in the truth of the opposite one. 

Let it be observed, that our object is not to show that we are 
warranted in adducing the authority of the great name of Calvin 
as a positive testimony in favour of the doctrine of particular re- 
demption, — of a limited atonement, — as it has been generally held 
by Calvinistic divines; but rather to show that there is no adequate 
ground for adducing him, as has been done so frequently and so 
confidently, on the other side. To adduce Calvin as maintaining 
the doctrine of particular redemption, could scarcely, upon a full 



* Niemeyer, pp. 259 and 286. 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 401 

and impartial survey of the whole circumstances of the case, be 
regarded as warrantable. It is evident that he had never been 
led to examine this precise question, in the form which it after- 
wards assumed in controversial discussion, and to give an explicit 
deliverance upon it. He seems to have attached little or no im- 
portance to any definite doctrine about the extent of the atone- 
ment. In his "Antidote" to the earlier sessions of the Council 
of Trent, he passes by without comment or animadversion the 
fourth chapter of the sixth session, although it contains an ex- 
plicit declaration that Christ died for .all men ; and he does this 
not tacitly, as if per incuriam, but with the explicit statement, 
" tertium et quartum caput non attingo," — as if he found nothing 
there to object to. He was in no way sensitive or cautious about 
using language, concerning the universality of the offers and in- 
vitations, or — in the phraseology which then generally prevailed — 
the promises of the gospel, and concerning the provisions and 
arrangements of the scheme of redemption, which might have the 
appearance of being inconsistent w T ith any limitation in the objects 
or destination of the atonement. And it is chiefly because the 
great body of those who have been called after his name — even 
those of them who have held the doctrine of a definite or limited 
atonement — have followed his example in this respect, believing 
it to have the full sanction of Scripture, that Daillee and others 
have got up such a mass of testimonies from their writings, in 
which they seem to give some countenance to the tenet of uni- 
versal redemption, even at the expense of consistency. But this 
is no reason why Calvinists should hesitate to follow the course, 
which Scripture so plainly sanctions and requires, of proclaiming 
the glad tidings of salvation to all men indiscriminately without 
any distinction or exception, setting forth, without hesitation or 
qualification, the fulness and freeness of the gospel offers and 
invitations, — of inviting, encouraging, and requiring every de- 
scendant of Adam with whom they come into contact, to come 
to Christ and lay hold of Him, with the assurance that those 
who come to Him He will in no wise reject. The doctrine of 
particular redemption, or of an atonement limited, not as to its 
sufficiency, but as to its object, purpose, or destination, does not, 
either in reality or in appearance, throw any greater obstacle in 
the way of preaching the gospel to every creature, than the doc- 
trines which all Calvinists hold, of the absolute unconditional elec- 

VOL. I. 26 



402 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

tion of some men to eternal life, and of the indispensable necessity 
and determining influence of the special agency of the Holy Spirit 
in producing faith and conversion. The difficulty of this whole 
subject lies in a department which belongs to God's province, and 
not to ours. He has imposed upon us the duty of making Christ 
known to our fellow-men, not only as able, but as willing and 
ready, to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God by Him ; 
and this duty we are bound by the most solemn obligations to 
discharge, without let or hindrance, without doubt or hesitation ; 
assured that God, while exercising His own sovereignty in dealing 
with His creatures, will, in His own time and way, fully vindicate 
the consistency and the honour of all that He has done Himself, 
and of all that He has required us to do in His name. 

IV. The only other topic to which we referred, — as one in re- 
gard to which it has been made matter of discussion what Calvin's 
views were, and whether he did not come short of the accuracy 
and precision exhibited by Beza, and the generality of later Cal- 
vinists, — is the doctrine of justification. Some Arminians have- 
gone so far as to allege, that Calvin held their fundamental dis- 
tinguishing principle upon this subject, — that, viz., of the imputa- 
tion of faith as a substitute for, or in the room and stead of, a 
perfect personal righteousness, as the ground of a sinner's for- 
giveness ; in distinction from, and in opposition to, the doctrine 
of the imputation of Christ's righteousness through the instru- 
mentality of faith. But no evidence has been produced from his 
writings in support of this allegation, sufficient to entitle it to 
examination. It has also, however, been alleged, and with much 
greater plausibility, that he held justification to consist solely in 
pardon or remission of sin, without including in it, as the gene- 
rality of Calvinists have done, the distinct additional idea of the 
acceptance of men as righteous; and that, as a natural conse- 
quence, he did not admit the distinction — which has also been held 
by most of his followers — between the passive righteousness of 
Christ, or His vicarious sufferings, as more immediately the ground 
of our pardon, and His active righteousness, or perfect obedience 
to the law, as more immediately the ground of our acceptance and 
title to heaven. With respect to the first of these points, — viz. his 
making justification to consist solely in pardon or remission, — it is 
undeniable that he has repeatedly made statements in which this is 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 403 

asserted in terminis. But the meaning and bearing of these state- 
ments have been somewhat misconceived, from not attending to the 
leading object which he had in view in making them, and to the im- 
port of the tenet against which he was arguing. His chief object in 
laying down this position, was to deny and exclude the Popish doc- 
trine of justification, which makes it comprehend not only remission, 
but also regeneration. And the sum and substance of what he 
meant to inculcate, in laying down the position that justification con- 
sisted only in remission, w r as just this, that it did not comprehend, as 
the Papists maintained, a change of character, but merely a change 
of state in relation to God and to His law. That he did not mean 
to deny, and that he really believed, that justification included 
acceptance as a distinct element from forgiveness, — separable from 
it in thought, though always united with it in fact, — and that 
he based the one as well as the other solely upon the righteousness 
of Christ imputed through faith, can be clearly established from 
his writings. Indeed, this may be said to be put beyond all doubt 
by the following very explicit commentary upon the apostle's state- 
ment,* that " Christ is made unto us righteousness," or justifica- 
tion : "quo intelligit (apostolus) nos ejus nomine acceptos esse Deo, 
quia morte sua peccata nostra expiaverit, et ejus obedientia nobis 
in justitiam imputetur. Nam quum fidei justitia in peccatorum 
remissione et gratuita acceptione consistat, utrumque per Chris- 
tum consequimur." This statement is far too precise and explicit 
to admit of being explained away, and it is quite conclusive as to 
what were Calvin's views upon the point now under consideration. 
It may be worth while to advert to another expression which 
Calvin sometimes used when treating of this subject, — an expres- 
sion which confirms the accuracy of the account we have given of 
his sentiments, but which in itself is not strictly correct, as was 
indeed brought out in the course of the subsequent controversies. 
Calvin repeatedly speaks of justification as consisting in the re- 
mission of sins and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. 
There can be no reasonable doubt that, when he used this form 
of expression, he meant by the imputation of Christ's righteous- 
ness just acceptance, or positive admission into the enjoyment of 
God's favour, — the bestowal of a right or title to eternal life, as 
distinguished from and going beyond mere forgiveness. In any 



* 1 Cor. i. 30. 



404 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

other sense, and, indeed, in the strict and proper meaning of the 
expression, the statement is inaccurate. The imputation of 
Christ's righteousness, correctly understood, is to be regarded as, 
in the order of nature, preceding both remission and acceptance, 
and as being the ground or basis, or the meritorious or impulsive 
cause of these two results — that to which God has a respect when 
in any instance He pardons and accepts a sinner. 

As to the distinction between the passive and the active right- 
eousness of Christ, — the first regarded as more immediately the 
ground of our pardon, and the second of our acceptance, — this 
does not appear to be formally brought out in the writings of 
Calvin. It is to be traced rather to the more minute and subtle 
speculations to which the doctrine of justification was afterwards 
subjected ; and though the distinction is quite in accordance with 
the analogy of faith, and may be of use in aiding the formation 
of distinct and definite conceptions, it is not of any great prac- 
tical importance, and need not be much pressed or insisted on, 
if men heartily and intelligently ascribe their forgiveness and 
acceptance wholly to what Christ has done and suffered in their 
room and stead. There is no ground in anything Calvin has 
written for asserting, that he would have denied or rejected this 
distinction, if it had been presented to him. But it was perhaps 
more in accordance with the cautious and reverential spirit in 
which he usually conducted his investigations into divine things, 
to abstain from any minute and definite statements regarding it. 
Much prominence came to be given to these distinctions between 
forgiveness and acceptance, and between Christ's passive and 
active righteousness, in the Lutheran Church ; and it is interest- 
ing to notice, that down till about the middle of last century, — 
when everything like sound doctrine and true religion were swept 
away by the prevalence of rationalism, — not only these distinc- 
tions, but the whole of the scriptural doctrine on the subject of 
justification, were strenuously maintained by the Lutheran theo- 
logians. Very few Calvinistic divines have rejected the distinction 
between forgiveness and acceptance, though many have been dis- 
posed to pass over or omit the distinction between Christ's passive 
and active righteousness. The most eminent Calvinistic divines, 
who have maintained that justification consists only in remission 
of sins, — thus denying or ignoring the generally received dis- 
tinction between forgiveness and acceptance, and rejecting the 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 405 

imputation of Christ's active righteousness, — were Piscator and 
Wendelinus, who both belonged to the German Keformed Church, 
the former of whom nourished near the beginning, and the latter 
about the middle of the seventeenth century. The general reason- 
ings on which these men based their peculiar views are of no force, 
except upon the assumption of principles which would overturn 
altogether the Scripture doctrines of substitution and imputation. 
The question resolves into this — Whether we have sufficient evi- 
dence in Scripture for these distinctions ? And in the discussion 
of this question it has, we think, been shown that the scriptural 
evidence is sufficient ; and that those who deny this, demand an 
amount of evidence, both in point of quantity and of directness 
and explicitness, which is unreasonable. 

But many eminent divines have been of opinion that the con- 
troversies which have been carried on upon this subject, have led 
some of the defenders of the truth to press these distinctions — 
especially that between Christ's passive and active righteousness — 
beyond what Scripture warrants, and in a way that is scarcely in 
keeping with the general scope and spirit of its statements. There 
is no trace of this excess, however, in the admirably cautious and 
accurate declarations upon this subject in the Westminster Con- 
fession ; where, while pardon and acceptance are expressly distin- 
guished as separate elements in the justification of a sinner, they 
are both ascribed, equally and alike, to the obedience and death of 
Christ, without any specification of the distinct places or functions 
which His passive and active righteousness hold in the matter. 

" Those whom God effectually calleth He also freely justifieth ; not by in- 
fusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting 
and accepting their persons as righteous ; not for anything wrought in them, 
or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone ; not by imputing faith itself, 
the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their 
righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto 
them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, 
which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God."* 

This statement contains a beautifully precise and exact repu- 
diation of Popish and Arminian errors, and assertion of the oppo- 
site truths, upon the subject of justification ; but it wisely abstains 
from giving any deliverance, directly or by implication, upon those 
more minute points which are less clearly indicated in Scripture, 

* C. xi. s. 1. 



406 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

and have been made subjects of controversial discussion among 
Calvinists. The same wisdom and caution are exhibited in deal- 
ing with this topic in the corresponding portions of the catechisms. 
In the Larger Catechism, pardon and acceptance are both based, 
equally and alike, upon " the perfect obedience and full satisfac- 
tion of Christ;" and in the Shorter Catechism, while they are 
still distinguished from each other, they are both declared to be 
based upon " the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us and re- 
ceived by faith alone." The danger of yielding to any excess, or 
undue minuteness, of exposition upon this subject, and at the same 
time the necessity and importance of maintaining the whole truth 
regarding it, as sanctioned by Scripture, are very clearly and judi- 
ciously enforced by Turretine, with his usual masterly ability.* 

The general subject which we have been surveying might 
suggest some reflections fitted to be useful in the study of theo- 
logy and of theological literature, bearing especially upon the two 
topics — of the use and application of testimonies from eminent 
writers as authorities upon controverted questions, and the value 
and importance of definite and precise statements in the exposition 
of the doctrines of Christian theology. 

In almost all theological controversies, much space has been 
occupied by the discussion of extracts from books and documents, 
adduced as authorities in support of the opinions maintained ; and 
there is certainly no department of theological literature in which 
so much ability and learning, so much time and strength, have 
been uselessly wasted, or in which so much of controversial un- 
fairness has been exhibited. Controversialists in general have 
shown an intense and irresistible desire to prove, that their pecu- 
liar opinions were supported by the Fathers, or by the Reformers, 
or by the great divines of their own church ; and have often 
exhibited a great want both of wisdom and of candour in the 
efforts they have made to effect this object. It is indeed very 
important to ascertain, as far as possible, the doctrinal views which 
have prevailed in every country where theology has been studied, 
and in each successive generation since the canon of Scripture 
was completed. And it is a gratifying feature in the condition of 
the church, that so much attention has been given in modern 
times — especially on the Continent — to the full and scientific 



* Loc. xiv. Q. xiii. s. 11, 12. 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 407 

treatment of the history of doctrines. The history of opinion can 
always be turned, by competent persons, to good account in the 
investigation of truth. It is important also to ascertain fully the 
views held even by individuals, who have exerted an important 
influence on their own and subsequent ages, — epoch-making men 
as they have been called, — such as Origen, Augustine, Abelard, 
Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and Socinus. Some defe- 
rence is due to the opinions of men who have brought distinguished 
gifts and graces to bear on the study of theology. But no defe- 
rence that may be shown to the opinions of men, should ever 
be transmuted into submission to authority, properly so called; 
as if it ever could be of essential importance, or of determining 
influence, to ascertain what other men believed on matters which 
are revealed to us in God's word. No document has ever been 
prepared by uninspired men, which did not exhibit some traces of 
human imperfection, — not indeed always in actual positive error, 
yet in something about it defective or exaggerated, disproportion- 
ate or unsuitable, — exhibited either in the document itself, or in its 
relation to the purpose it was intended to serve. There is no man 
who has written much upon important and difficult subjects, and 
has not fallen occasionally into error, confusion, obscurity, and in- 
consistency ; and there is certainly no body of men that have ever 
been appealed to as authorities, in whose writings a larger measure 
of these qualities is to be found than in those of the Fathers of the 
Christian church. We have never read anything more wearisome 
and useless than the discussions which have been carried on be- 
tween Eomanists and Protestants, especially divines of the Church 
of England, concerning the opinions of the Fathers of the early 
ages. Never have ability and learning been more thoroughly 
wasted, than in those endless debates, in which so much pains 
have been taken to bring out the meaning of passages in the 
Fathers, which really have no meaning, or no meaning that 
can be ascertained, — which in many cases their authors, if they 
could be called up and examined, would be unable to explain 
intelligibly; and to harmonize the confusion and reconcile the 
inconsistencies which abound in their works. It was right and 
important indeed to show conclusively and once for all, that the 
Eomanists are not warranted to appeal to the early church, in 
support of their leading peculiar opinions ; and the conclusive evi- 
dence which has been produced in proof of this position, it may 



408 



CALVIN AND BEZA. 



[Essay VII. 



be necessary occasionally to refer to. But beyond this, elaborate 
discussions of the meaning of particular passages in the Fathers, 
should in general be now regarded as nothing better than learned 
lumber. Occasions indeed do sometimes occur in theological 
literature where something of this kind may be called for. And 
we think that there was a dignus vindice nodus, and that an im- 
portant service was rendered to the cause of truth, when Dr 
Goode, the Dean of Bipon, undertook and endured the labor im- 
probus of proving — as he has done unanswerably, in his " Divine 
Eule of Faith and Practice" — that the Tractarian appeal to the 
authority of the Fathers, and also of the great Anglican divines, 
was characterized by the same incompetency and unfairness which 
have usually marked the conduct of Romish controversialists.* 

In adducing extracts from eminent writers in support of their 
opinions, controversialists usually overlook or forget the obvious 
consideration, that it is only the mature and deliberate conviction 
of a competent judge upon the precise point under consideration 
that should be held as entitled to any deference. When men 
have never, or scarcely ever, had present to their thoughts the 
precise question that may have afterwards become matter of dis- 
pute, — when they have never deliberately examined it, or given a 
formal and explicit deliverance regarding it,— it will usually follow, 
1st, That it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain what they 
thought about it, — to collect this from incidental statements, or mere 
allusions, dropped when they were treating of other topics ; and 
2d, That their opinion about it, if it could be ascertained, would 
be of no weight or value. A large portion of the materials which 
have been collected by controversialists as testimonies in favour of 
their opinions from eminent writers, is at once swept away as use- 
less and irrelevant, by the application of this principle. The truth 
of this principle is so obvious, that it has passed into a sort of 
proverb, — " auctoris aliud agentis parva est auctoritas." And yet 
controversialists in general have continued habitually to disregard 
it, and to waste their time in trying to bring the authority of 



* It is but right, however, to remem- 
ber that unfairness in this matter has 
been sometimes exhibited also by the 
friends of truth. It is a very humbling 
and mortifying exposure which has 
been made by Mr Isaac Taylor, in the 



Supplement to his Ancient Christi- 
anity, of inaccuracy in dealing with 
quotations from the Fathers, exhibited 
in the authorized Homilies of the 
Church of England. 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 409 

eminent writers to bear upon questions which they had never ex- 
amined ; and have not scrupled, in many cases, to have recourse 
to garbling and mutilation, in order either to silence testimonies or 
to make them speak more plainly. The opinion even of Calvin, 
upon a point which he had never carefully examined, and on 
which he has given no formal deliverance, is of no weight or 
value, and would scarcely be worth examining ; were it not that so 
much has been written upon this subject, and that his views upon 
many points have been, and still are, so much misrepresented. 

In dealing with authorities, then, it is necessary to ascertain 
whether the authors referred to and quoted have really formed 
and expressed an opinion upon the point in regard to which their 
testimony is adduced. It is necessary further to collect together, 
and to examine carefully and deliberately, the whole of what they 
have written upon the subject under consideration, that we may 
understand fully and accurately what their whole mind regarding 
it really was, instead of trying to educe it from a hasty glance at 
partial and incidental statements. And in order to conduct this 
process of estimating and applying testimonies in a satisfactory 
and successful way, it is also necessary that we be familiar with 
the whole import and bearing of the discussion on both sides, as 
it was present to the mind of the author whose statements we are 
investigating. Without this knowledge, we shall be very apt to 
misapprehend the true meaning and significance of what he has 
said, and to make it the ground of unwarranted and erroneous 
inferences. We have seen how necessary it is, in order to under- 
stand and construe aright Calvin's statements about imputation 
and justification, to know in what way these subjects were dis- 
cussed at the time among Romanists as well as among Protestants ; 
and many other illustrations of the necessity of a thorough ac- 
quaintance with the whole question in all its aspects, and of the 
errors arising from the want of it, might easily be adduced from 
this department of theological controversy. To manage aright 
this matter of the adduction and application of testimonies or 
authorities, requires an extent of knowledge, a patience and caution 
in comparing and estimating materials, and an amount of candour 
and tact, which few controversialists possess, and in which many 
of them are deplorably deficient. This is not indeed a depart- 
ment of investigation which can be regarded as possessed of any 
great intrinsic importance, with a view to the establishment of 



410 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

truth. But it has always occupied, and it is likely to continue to 
occupy, a prominent place in theological literature ; and it is there- 
fore of some consequence that it should be conducted judiciously, 
accurately, and honourably. 

Much more important than this subject of authorities and 
testimonies, is the other topic suggested by the survey in which 
we have been engaged, viz. the increasing fulness, exactness, and 
precision of deliverances on doctrinal matters, as the result of con- 
troversial discussion. The great lessons suggested by the investi- 
gation in which we have been engaged, and suggested indeed by 
the whole history of the discussion of all such questions, are, 1st, 
The obligation to improve the controversies which have sprung 
up in the church, for aiding in the formation of clear and ac- 
curate, precise and definite, opinions upon all topics of doctrinal 
theology, up to the full extent which Scripture, correctly inter- 
preted and reasonably and judiciously applied, may be fairly held 
to sanction ; 2d, The danger and mischief of laying down ex- 
plicit deliverances, and indulging in elaborate controversies, about 
minuter matters which are not revealed to us, and which Scrip- 
ture really furnishes no materials for determining ; and 3d, The 
necessity of great caution and much wisdom in introducing into 
symbolical books, and thereby imposing as articles of faith or 
terms of communion, even true positions of a minute and definite 
description, which may possess no great intrinsic importance as 
connected with the development of the scheme of salvation, or 
which may derive their importance from temporary or local dis- 
cussions. These, of course, are just truisms admitted by every 
one. Everything depends upon the right application of them to 
particular cases and topics ; and this requires thorough and com- 
prehensive knowledge, great soundness and discrimination of in- 
tellect, and much careful and deliberate investigation, — qualities 
which are very rare, and which especially are very seldom found 
in combination with each other. 

In regard to each of these three positions, there are tempta- 
tions and dangers on both sides, — great risks both of defect and 
of excess ; and one chief means fitted, with the divine blessing, to 
guard against error in these matters, both on the right hand and 
on the left, is a comprehensive survey of the history of past dis- 
cussions, and a sincere and impartial determination to turn it to 
the best account, with a view to the ascertaining of truth and the 



Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 411 

determining of the church's duty. It is an imperative obligation, 
attaching to every man, according to his means and opportunities, 
to acquire as accurate and complete a knowledge of the contents 
of divine revelation as he can. And next to the diligent and 
prayerful study of the word of God itself, in the unwearied and 
impartial application of all legitimate apparatus and auxiliaries, a 
comprehensive and discriminating investigation of past discussions, 
conducted by competent parties, affords the best means of dis- 
charging this duty and securing this result. Wherever men of 
ability, learning, and integrity, have brought their minds to bear 
upon the investigation of divine truth, — and especially when, by the 
collision of men of this stamp, the sifting analytic process of con- 
troversial discussions has been brought to bear upon the subjects 
examined, — materials are provided, which, by men who have not 
themselves been involved in the controversies, may be turned to 
the best account, in forming an accurate estimate, first, of the 
truth, and then, secondly and separately, of the importance, of 
the points involved. Men are bound to improve to the uttermost 
all their opportunities of acquiring the most clear, accurate, and 
exact knowledge of all the truths revealed in the sacred Scrip- 
tures ; and some men, in seeking to discharge this duty, have been 
honoured by the Head of the church tc contribute largely to dif- 
fuse among their fellow-men more correct, definite, and compre- 
hensive views of Christian doctrine than had prevailed before, and 
to show that these views were indeed sanctioned by the word of God. 
The men who have been most highly honoured in this impor- 
tant department of work, were Augustine in the fifth century, — 
the Reformers of the sixteenth century, and especially Calvin, the 
greatest of them all, — and lastly, the great Calvinistic systematic 
divines of the seventeenth century. The works of this last class of 
writers — such men as Francis Turretine, John Henry Heidegger, 
Herman Witsius, and Peter Van Mastricht — are based wholly 
upon the theology of the Reformation ; but they carry it out to 
its completion, and may be said to form the crown and the cope- 
stone of theological science, viewed as an accurate, comprehensive, 
and systematic exposition and defence of the doctrines revealed 
in the word of God. We believe that these men have given an 
exposition of the doctrines which are made known to us in the 
sacred Scriptures, and which all men are bound to understand and 
believe, because God has revealed them, such as in point of clear- 



412 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII. 

xiess and fulness, accuracy and comprehensiveness, was never 
before equalled, and has never since been surpassed. In the 
writings of these men, and of others of the same class and period, 
we find that almost every discussion raised for the last century 
and a half about the substance of theology— that is, about the 
doctrines actually taught in Scripture concerning all matters of 
universal and permanent importance, concerning God and man, 
Christ and the way of salvation, the church and the sacraments — 
is dealt with and disposed of, — is practically exhausted and con- 
clusively determined. But it does not by any means follow from 
this, that the precise and definite statements, on doctrinal sub- 
jects, which the writings of these men present — although true in 
themselves and warranted by Scripture, as in general we believe 
them to be — should be embodied in symbolical books, and be 
thereby made terms of communion with a view to ordination to 
the ministry, and grounds of separation among churches. The 
duty of a church in settling her symbols, or arranging her terms 
of communion, is to be regulated by different principles from those 
which determine the duty of individuals, who are simply bound to 
acquire and to profess as much of accurate and distinct knowledge 
of truth as they can attain to, on all matters, whether important 
or not. When a church is arranging her terms of communion, 
other considerations, in addition to that of the mere truth of the 
statements, must be brought to bear upon the question, of what it 
is right, necessary, and expedient to do, or of what amount of 
unity in matters of opinion ought to be required. The principles 
applicable to this branch of the church's duty have never been 
subjected to a thorough discussion by competent parties, though 
they are very important in their bearings ; and the right applica- 
tion of them is attended with great difficulty. Calvin would pro- 
bably have made a difficulty about adopting precise and definite 
deliverances on some points, concerning the truth of which the 
great Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century had no hesi- 
tation. But it will probably be admitted that he was qualified 
for the office of a minister in a Calvinistic church, even in this 
advanced nineteenth century. 

The great general objects to be aimed at in this matter, though 
the application is, of course, the difficulty, are embodied in the 
famous maxim, which Witsius adopted as his favourite motto — " In 
necessariis unitas, in non necessariis libertas, in omnibus caritas." 



CALVINISM AND AMINIANISM.* 



It has often been alleged that Calvinists are very pugnacious, — 
ever ready to fight in defence of their peculiar opinions. But a 
survey of the theological literature of this country for the last 
half century gives no countenance to this impression. Much 
more has been published in defence of Arminianism than of Cal- 
vinism. Calvinists have scarcely shown the zeal and activity 
that might have been reasonably expected of them, either in re- 
pelling attacks that were made upon them, or in improving ad- 
vantages that were placed within their reach. In the early part 
of the century, indeed, the "Refutation of Calvinism," by Bishop 
Tomline, was thoroughly refuted by Scott, the commentator, in 
his " Remarks" upon it, and hy Dr Edward Williams, in his 
" Defence of Modern Calvinism." But since that time, Cople- 
ston, Whately, Stanley Faber, and Richard Watson — men of 



* British and Foreign Evangelical 
Review. July 1858. 

Essays on some of the Difficulties in 
the Writings of the Apostle Paul, and 
in other parts of the New Testament. 
Essay iii. — On Election. By Richard 
Whately, D.D., Archbishop of Dub- 
lin. 7th Edit, enlarged. London, 1854. 

The Primitive Doctrine of Election ; 
or, An Historical Inquiry into the 
Ideality and Causation of Scriptural 
Election, as received and maintained 
in the Primitive Church of Christ. By 
George Stanley Faber, B.D., Master 
of Sherburn Hospital, and Canon of 
Salisbury. 2d Edition. London, 1842. 



A Treatise on the Augustinian Doc- 
trine of Predestination. By J. B. 
Mozley, B.D., Fellow of Magdalen 
College, Oxford. London, 1855. 

The Absence of Precision in the For- 
mularies of the Church of England, 
Scriptural and suitable to a state of 
Probation. Bampton Lectures for 
1855. By John Ernest Bode, M.A., 
Rector of Westwell. 

An Exposition of the Thirty-nine 
Articles, Historical and Doctrinal. By 
E. Harold Browne, B.D., Norrisian 
Professor of Divinity in the University 
of Cambridge, and Canon of Exeter. 
Fourth Edition. London, 1858. 



414 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

deservedly high reputation — have all written against Calvinism, 
and some of them very elaborately, while no answer to any of 
them has been produced by its defenders. Whately and Richard 
Watson — the first from his sagacity and candour, exercised both 
upon matters of abstract reasoning and of philological investiga- 
tion, and the second from the general soundness of his views upon 
original sin and regeneration, so different from the Pelagianism 
of the school of Whitby and Tomline — have made concessions, 
and thereby have afforded advantages, to Calvinists, of which they 
have hitherto failed, so far as we have noticed, to make any public 
use. The concessions of Watson are nothing but what every one 
who holds scriptural views of the moral state of human nature, 
and of the work of the Holy Spirit in changing it, must make ; 
and such accordingly as have been made by all the more evangeli- 
cal and anti-Pelagian Arminians from Arminius downwards. But 
his attack upon Calvinism — forming the concluding portion of 
the second part of his " Theological Institutes," and published also 
in a small volume separately, as well as in the collected edition of 
his works — is, both from its great ability and from the large 
amount of scriptural anti-Pelagian truth which it embodies, de- 
serving of special attention. It has been thirty years before the 
world, and it has not, so far as we know, been answered. 

Dr Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, in his Essay upon Elec- 
tion, — the third in the volume entitled " Essays on some of the 
Difficulties in the Writings of the Apostle Paul," — has made 
some important concessions to Calvinists, both in regard to mat- 
ters of abstract reasoning and philological exposition, which are 
eminently creditable to his sagacity and candour, but which they 
do not seem as yet to have turned to much account. There is 
really more of interest, and, in a sense, of something like novelty, 
in these concessions of Dr Whately, than in almost anything that 
has been produced upon the subject of this great controversy in 
the present day. There is indeed nothing like novelty in the 
statements themselves to which we now refer. They express views 
which have been always laid down and insisted on by the de- 
fenders of Calvinism. The importance and the novelty are to be 
found only in the circumstance of their being brought forward 
by one who is not a Calvinist. Dr Whately, in the essay referred 
to, has admitted, in substance, that the arguments commonly ad- 
duced against the Calvinistic doctrine of election, derived from 






Essay VIIL] CALVINISM AND AEMINIANISM. 415 

the moral attributes of God, apply as much to actual results 
occurring under God's providential government, — in other words, 
apply equally to the facts of the introduction and permanent 
existence of moral evil ; and that the term election, as used in 
Scripture, relates, in most instances, to " an arbitrary, irrespective, 
unconditional decree." These are positions which have been 
always asserted, and have been often conclusively proved, by 
Calvinists ; but they have not usually been admitted by their 
opponents. And it may seem, at first sight, difficult to understand 
how any one could admit them, and yet continue to reject the 
doctrines of Calvinism. 

We once had occasion* to refer to these positions of Dr 
Whately; and, regarding him as an Arminian, we ventured to 
apply that designation to him, and to represent these positions 
as the concessions of an opponent. Dr Whately, it seems, 
does not believe or admit that he is an Arminian, and took 
offence at being so designated. In the last edition of the volume 
above referred to, he adverts to this matter in the following 
terms : — 

" So widely spread are these two schemes of interpretation, that I have 
known a reviewer, very recently, allude to a certain author as 'an Ar- 
minian,' though he had written and published his dissent from the Armi- 
nian theory, and his reasons for it. The reviewer, on having this blunder 
pointed out, apologized by saying that he had merely concluded him to be an 
Arminian, because he was not Calvinist, and he had supposed that every one 
must be either the one or the other ! It is remarkable that, by a converse 
error, the very same author had been, some years before, denounced as Cal- 
vinistic, on the ground that he was not Arminian." f 

Dr Whately has acted from misinformation or misappre- 
hension in saying that the reviewer to whom he refers apolo- 
gized for the blunder of representing him as an Arminian. 
The reviewer has never seen that there was any blunder in the 
matter, and is prepared to assert and to prove, that, accord- 
ing to the ordinary acknowledged rules applicable to such ques- 
tions, Dr Whately may be fairly called an. Arminian, whether he 
perceives and admits that he is so or not ; and that it is absurd 
to pretend, as he does, to be neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. 



* Nortli British Review, vol. xvii. I f Essay iii. 
p. 482, Aug. 1852. | note p. 68, 7th Edit. 






41 G CALVINISM AND AKMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

There is no doubt a sense in which on this, as well as on most 
of the leading questions in Christian theology, there is a three- 
fold course open to men. They may adopt Socinian as well as 
Arminian or Calvinistic views on the subject of election, just as 
on other great doctrines of the Christian system ; but Socinianism 
upon this point is not much brought forward now-a-days, and was 
therefore scarcely worth adverting to in an incidental and popular 
allusion to existing differences. Arminians and Socinians oppose, 
with equal strenuousness, and upon substantially the same grounds, 
the whole doctrines of Calvinists upon this subject. They agree 
with each other in all the main conclusions they hold in regard to 
foreordination and election; so that all parties may really be ranked 
under the two heads of Calvinists and anti-Calvinists. The main 
difference here between the Arminians and the Socinians is, that 
the former admit, while the latter deny, the divine foreknowledge 
of future events. This is not a difference bearing directly upon 
what is actually maintained under the head of predestination ; 
though it enters into, and has been largely discussed in connec- 
tion with, the arguments in support of the one and the other side 
of that question. Indeed, some of the bolder and more candid of 
the old Socinians acknowledge, that they denied the doctrine of 
divine foreknowledge, chiefly because they were unable to see 
how, if this were admitted, they could refuse to concede the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine of foreordination ; while, at the same time, some 
of the bolder and more candid of the old Arminians have made it 
manifest, that they would gladly have rejected the doctrine of the 
divine foreknowledge, if they could have devised any plausible 
evasion of the scriptural evidence in support of it. The admission 
or denial of the divine foreknowledge — though in itself a difference 
of very great importance — thus affects rather the mode of con- 
ducting the argument, so far as foreordination is concerned, than 
the actual positions maintained by the opposite parties ; though it 
has often been brought into some of the more popular but less 
accurate forms of stating the point in dispute. Arminians and 
Socinians concur in denying all the leading positions held by 
Calvinists on the subject of the divine decrees or purposes, — the 
foreordination of all events, — and the absolute election of some 
men to eternal life ; and, practically, the great question is, — Is 
the Calvinistic affirmation or the anti-Calvinistic negation of 
these things true? This being so, it is not strictly correct to 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 417 

say, that the only antagonistic alternative to the Calvinistic doc- 
trine of predestination is the Arminian one ; because the funda- 
mental Calvinistic position is denied equally by Arminians and 
Socinians; and the real question in dispute may be, and should 
be, stated in such a way as to omit any reference to the point of 
difference between the Arminians and the Socinians, — viz. the 
divine foreknowledge, — and to apply equally and alike to both 
sections of anti-Calvinists. 

But while on this ground it must be admitted, that the anta- 
gonistic position to the Calvinistic doctrine is somewhat wider and 
more comprehensive than the Arminian one, as commonly stated 
by Arminians themselves ; yet the Sociniah denial of the divine 
foreknowledge is now so little brought under our notice, that 
there was really no call to take it into account in an incidental 
reference to the subject ; — and there is no material inaccuracy in 
Calvinism and Arminianism being spoken of as the only really 
antagonistic positions. 

It is not upon the ground which has now been adverted to, 
that Dr Whately objects to being called an Arminian, and tries 
to throw ridicule upon the idea that a man must be either an 
Arminian or a Calvinist. He is not a Socinian on this point ; 
for he admits the divine foreknowledge of all events. He denies 
that he is an Arminian, — he denies that he is a Calvinist ; and he 
denies that a man, though holding the divine foreknowledge of all 
events, and therefore not a Socinian, must be either a Calvinist 
or an Arminian on the subject of foreordination. He thus 
plainly gives us to understand that he holds a doctrine on this 
subject which is materially and substantially different both from 
Calvinism and Arminianism, — though he has not suggested any 
name by which to designate it. Now we take the liberty of 
dissenting from all this.; and we do not hesitate to affirm that Dr 
Whately is an Arminian : and further, that every man who has 
formed an intelligent and definite opinion upon this important 
controversy, and who repudiates the Socinian denial of the divine 
foreknowledge, must be either an Arminian or a Calvinist, — or 
rather must be an Arminian, if he refuses to admit the truth of 
Calvinism. 

It may seem somewhat ungracious to refuse Dr Whately's 
own statement about his views, and to continue to maintain that 
he is an Arminian, when he himself repudiates the name. Most 

VOL. I. 27 



418 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

certainly nothing ungracious is intended ; the somewhat uncour- 
teous form of the statement is the result of what was purely 
accidental ; and there are some important considerations, bearing 
upon the interests of truth, which seem to render it expedient 
that the ground taken should be maintained. The allegation 
that the Archbishop is an Arminian was introduced in the most 
incidental way, and evidently under the influence of a feeling that 
this was a position of notorious and undeniable certainty v — a 
position which no one could dispute, and of which no one would 
complain. We are neither convinced nor frightened by the some- 
what angry allusion made to this matter in the note above quoted 
from him ; and we think it may be fitted to throw light upon an 
important subject, not well understood, if we attempt to establish 
the truth of the allegation. We have, of course, no doubt of the 
integrity and sincerity of Dr Whately in abjuring the name of 
an Arminian. We differ from him in opinion as to what is or 
is not Arminianism, and as to what are the grounds and circum- 
stances which warrant the application of this name ; and these 
are matters on which a difference of opinion may be expressed 
without any want of personal respect being indicated. We think 
we can prove that Dr Whately's views upon the subject of 
election are — notwithstanding his important concessions to Cal- 
vinism, above referred to — so accordant in substance with those 
which have been generally known in the history of the church 
as Arminian, and so different from those indicated by any other 
recognised ecclesiastical designation, that it is perfectly warrant- 
able to describe them as Arminianism. 

We would scarcely have thought of taking the trouble of 
attempting to prove this, had we not been persuaded that de- 
fective and erroneous views on these matters are very pre- 
valent, especially among the clergy of the Church of England ; 
and that there is not a little in the present aspect of theolo- 
gical literature, fitted to show the importance of trying to 
diffuse accurate and definite views of the true status qucestionis 
in regard to the topics involved in our controversy with the 
Arminians. 

Dr Whately is not the only eminent writer of the present day 
who has advocated Arminianism, without being aware of this, and 
even while repudiating it. The late Mr Stanley Faber — who has 
rendered important services in several departments of ecclesiastical 



Essay Vlllj CALVINISM AND AKMINIANISM. 419 

literature, and who was greatly superior to Dr Whately in theo- 
logical erudition, though much inferior to him in sagacity and 
penetration of intellect — published an elaborate work " On the 
Primitive Doctrine of Election," the second edition of which 
appeared in 1842. In this work he expounds three different 
theories on the subject of Election — viz. Calvinism, Arminianism, 
and what he calls Nationalism, or the system advocated by Locke 
and Dr John Taylor. He labours to prove that all these three 
theories are erroneous, — opposed equally to the testimony of 
Scripture, primitive antiquity, and the symbolical books of the 
Church of England. He then brings forward a fourth theory, 
different from all these — one which is neither Calvinism, nor 
Arminianism, nor Nationalism. This he calls Ecclesiastical In- 
dividualism, — meaning thereby an election of individuals to the 
privileges of the visible church — to the enjoyment of the means 
of grace. This fourth theory — as distinguished from and opposed 
to the other three — he labours to establish as true, by an applica- 
tion of the three standards just mentioned. While Calvinism, 
Arminianism, and Nationalism, are all unfounded and erroneous, 
Arminianism is, in Faber's judgment, the farthest removed from 
the truth ; or, as he expresses it,* — " Of the three systems, Armi- 
nianism has the most widely departed from aboriginal Christian 
antiquity" (including Scripture and the early fathers), " for, 
in truth, it has altogether forsaken it." Now, we are firmly 
persuaded, and think we can prove, that both the Nationalism 
which he rejects, and the Individualism which he upholds, are 
just in substance the very Arminianism which he denounces and 
abjures; that his Arminianism, Nationalism, and Ecclesiastical 
Individualism, are really just one and the same system or doctrine, 
exhibited under slightly different aspects, and constituting the one 
only really antagonistic theory to Calvinism. Faber, we think, 
has utterly failed to distinguish between the essentials and the 
accidentals of the different systems which he has investigated. 
He has not penetrated beneath the surface. He has been entirely 
carried away by slight and superficial differences, while he has 
wholly failed to perceive intrinsic and substantial resemblances. 
The consequence is, that his " Primitive Doctrine of Election" — 
though containing much interesting matter, which admits of being 



* P. 292. 



420 CALVINISM AND AEMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

usefully applied — is practically a mass of confusion ; and can 
produce only error and misapprehension in the minds of those 
who are unacquainted with some of the more thorough and 
searching expositions of these important and difficult subjects. 

If there be any truth in these statements, — if there be any 
fair ground for believing that Whately and Faber, the former 
most favourably representing the ability, and the latter the erudi- 
tion of the Episcopal Church of this country, are really Armi- 
nians, though they are not aware of it, — if these men are truly in 
substance teaching Arminianism, while they sincerely denounce 
and abjure it, — there must be some great misapprehension or 
confusion prevalent, which distorts and perverts men's views upon 
these subjects ; and if any such state of things exist, it must be 
important, with a view to the interests of truth, that it should be 
pointed out and exposed. 

The statements of Whately and Faber — to which we have 
referred — seem to be received as true, without any doubt or mis- 
giving, in the great ecclesiastical denomination to which these 
authors belong ; and we are not by any means confident that the 
generality of Scotch Calvinists now-a-days have sufficient know- 
ledge of doctrinal theology to be able to detect the fallacy. The 
discussion of this subject extends greatly beyond what is personal 
to individuals, as affecting the accuracy of their statements. It 
really involves the whole question of the right settlement of the 
true status qucestionis in the great controversy about predestina- 
tion. The settlement of the status qucestionis is always a point of 
fundamental importance in great doctrinal controversies. It is 
especially important in this one, where — unless the state of the 
question is clearly settled and carefully and constantly attended 
to — men are very apt to fight at random, to be dealing blows in 
the dark, and running some risk of wounding their friends. A 
right estimate of the accuracy of the statements of Whately and 
Faber, condemning and repudiating Arminianism, must be based 
upon an investigation of these two questions — 1st, What is the 
real essential point of difference between Calvinists and Arminians 
on the subject of election ? and 2d, Is there any real, definite, 
and important subject of controversial discussion involved in the 
exposition of election, and not disposed of by the determination 
of the fundamental question controverted between Calvinists and 
Arminians % It is only by settling and applying the first of these 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 421 

questions, that we can satisfactorily determine whether Whately 
and Faber, and men holding such opinions, may be justly desig- 
nated as Arminians ; and if, by a further application of the results 
of the same inquiry, we can settle the second of these two questions 
in the negative, we thus establish the wider and more important 
conclusion, that men who intelligently investigate the subject of 
election, and form anything like a clear and definite opinion 
regarding it, must be substantially either Calvinists or Arminians, 
whether they perceive and admit this or not. 

The consideration of these points, however, has a wider bearing 
than has yet been indicated. It is fitted to bring out some defects 
of considerable importance in the way in which this great class of 
theological topics have been usually discussed by divines of the 
Church of England. Doctrinal and systematic theology has not 
ordinarily been studied with much care by the clergy of that 
church ; and the consequence of this has been, not only that crude, 
confused, and erroneous views upon doctrinal subjects abound in 
the writings of many of them, but also that the warrantableness 
and desirableness of vague and indefinite views upon these matters 
have found in them open and avowed defenders. The clergy of 
the Church of England at the period of the Reformation were 
generally, like most of the other Reformers, Calvinists, and con- 
tinued to be so during the whole reign of Queen Elizabeth and 
the greater part of that of James VI. Since about the earlier 
part of the reign of Charles I., the great majority of them have 
ceased to be Calvinists, though many of these have refused, 
like Dr Whately, to be called Arminians, and some — though 
not Calvinists — have even declined to be called anti-Calvinists. 
These changes in the actual opinions of the clergy of the Church 
of England have taken place, while their symbolical books have 
continued unaltered upon doctrinal questions. Since the great 
body of the clergy have thus been at one time Calvinistic, and 
at another Arminian ; and since probably at all times, at least 
for two centuries and a half, there have been both Calvinists 
and Arminians among them, this has tended in many ways to 
produce great laxity and confusion of doctrinal views, and has 
not only tended to produce this laxity and confusion in point of 
fact, but to lead men to justify its prevalence as a sound and 
wholesome condition of things. Calvinists and Arminians had 
equally to show that their views were accordant with the Thirty- 



422 CALVINISM AND AEMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

nine Articles; and this almost unavoidably led, not only to a 
straining and tampering with the language of the Articles, but 
even with the full expression of their own personal convictions. 
Some have contended that the Articles admitted only of a Cal- 
vinistic, others only of an Arminian sense ; while others have 
thought it more accordant with the facts of the case, and with 
the honour of their church, to maintain that they do not decide 
in favour of either doctrine, but may be honestly adopted by 
both parties. The position that the Articles are neither Calvin- 
istic nor Arminian, distinctively, does not differ very materially 
from the one that they are both. Some have preferred to put 
it in this latter form ; and this again has just tended the more 
to deepen the confusion which has been introduced into the 
discussion. 

We may give a specimen or two of what is a common mode of 
speaking among the divines of the Church of England upon this 
subject. Bishop Tomline concludes his " Refutation of Calvinism" 
in these words : — " Our church is not Lutheran, it is not Cal- 
vinistic, it is not Arminian ; it is scriptural, it is built upon the 
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone." 
Dr Magee, the late Archbishop of Dublin, — whom we regard as 
a far superior man to Tomline, — puts the point under consideration 
in this way, in one of his charges : — 

" If any proof were wanting that our Articles are, as they profess to be, 
of a comprehensive character, it would be found in this, that, of the contend- 
ing parties into which our church is unhappily divided, each claims them as 
its own. By those who hold the creed of Arminius, they are pronounced to 
be Arminian ; and by those who hold the creed of Calvin, they are pronounced 
to be Calvinistic. The natural inference of the impartial reasoner would be, 
that they are neither, whilst they contain within them what may be traced to 
some of the leading principles of both. And this is the truth. They are not 
enslaved to the dogmas of any party in religion. They are not Arminian. 
They are not Calvinistic. They are scriptural. They are Christian.' 11 * 

In a note on this passage, | he asserts " that the doctrines of 
the Church of England are not the doctrines of Calvinism, and 
that the informed and intelligent clergy of that church are not 
the followers of Arminius." This has been a favourite mode of 
statement with very many Episcopalian divines, whom we believe 



* Works, vol. ii. p. 428. f P- 428. 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 423 

to have been substantially Arminians, perhaps without their being 
aware of it. Some Episcopalians — whose doctrinal views were 
sounder — have, as we have hinted, been disposed rather to take 
the ground, that, without contradicting either Scripture or the 
English Articles, men might be both Calvinists and Arminians, 
or partly the one and partly the other. Statements to this effect, 
or something like it, have been produced from " Cecil's Remains" 
and from "Simeon's Memoir;" and they have been employed by 
Professor Park of Andover, to countenance his ingenious attempt 
to involve important doctrinal differences in inextricable confu- 
sion, by distinguishing between the theology of intellect and the 
theology of feeling.* 

There is, indeed, a distinction to be made between men's own 
personal convictions and their views as to the meaning and im- 
port of a symbolical document of public authority. It is quite 
possible to produce a deliverance upon the subject of election, 
which is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian, — that is, which is so 
general, vague, and indefinite, as to contain no decision of any of 
the points really controverted between the opposite parties, A 
church may think such an indefinite and indecisive statement the 
most suitable for a symbolical book, — may deliberately intend to 
include both parties within her pale, — and may so regulate her 
deliverances as not to make a definite opinion on the one side or the 
other a term of communion, or what is virtually the same thing, 
a ground of separation. Very many of the clergy of the Church 
of England contend that this is realized in the Thirty-nine 
Articles. And it is quite possible that they may hold this to be 
an actual feature of these Articles, and approve of it as a right 
state of things for a church to exhibit in her symbols ; while yet 
they themselves, in their own personal convictions, may have 
decided the question in favour of the one side or the other. Tom- 
line and Magee were Arminians as much as Whately and Faber, 
while maintaining that the Articles are neither Arminian nor 
Calvinistic ; and they might have taken this view of the Articles 
although they themselves had been Calvinists. But although the 
Episcopalian clergy may consistently maintain that the Articles 
are neither Calvinistic nor Arminian, — even while they them- 
selves, in their own personal convictions, may have decidedly 



* Bibliotheca Sacra, 1852, No. v. pp. 209, 210. 



424 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

adopted the one view or the other, — yet there can be no doubt 
that the peculiar character of the Articles, and the kind of discus- 
sion which this has suggested or required, has tended largely to 
keep many Episcopalian divines in a state of great uncertainty 
and confusion in regard to this whole class of subjects. There 
being some plausible grounds for believing that subscription to 
the Articles did not require them to have their minds made up on 
the one side or on the other, very many have not thought them- 
selves called upon to give the time and research necessary for 
forming a judgment on these difficult and arduous topics; and 
have preferred to exercise their talents rather in the way of 
trying to show that it was not only unnecessary, but very difficult, 
and highly inexpedient and dangerous, to be forming a decided 
opinion, and to be giving an explicit deliverance, upon such 
matters. The title of the "Bampton Lectures" for 1855, by 
the Rev. John E. Bode, — and they form a very respectable 
work, — is this, "The Absence of Precision in the Formularies 
of the Church of England scriptural and suitable to a state of 
Probation." And this "absence of precision," which they regard 
as attaching to the public formularies, they too often extend to 
their own private personal convictions. This influence of the 
one upon the other has, no doubt, operated powerfully on the 
general state of thought and sentiment in the Church of Eng- 
land. But it ought not to have done so. There may be very 
good grounds why precise deliverances upon some doctrinal con- 
troversies should not be embodied in symbolical books; while 
yet it may be the duty of ministers to have formed for them- 
selves a decided opinion regarding them. The reasons that satisfy 
many of the warrantableness and expediency of the " absence 
of precision in the public formularies," do not necessarily sanction 
the same quality as attaching to men's own personal convictions ; 
though we fear that some notion of this sort is very prevalent 
among the clergy of the Church of England. Many have pre- 
served and cherished the " absence of precision" in their own 
personal convictions ; and in defending the propriety and ex- 
pediency of this, they have introduced a vast deal of vagueness 
and confusion into the whole discussion. 

This course has been adopted, and this tendency has been ex- 
hibited, chiefly by Arminians ; and Arminianism certainly has got 
the benefit of it. Indeed, ignorance and confusion upon this sub- 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 425 

ject always tend to the benefit of Arminianism. Truth is promoted 
by a thorough knowledge and a careful study of the subject in 
hand, and by the clear and definite conceptions which are the 
results of intelligence and investigation ; while any shortcoming 
or deficiency in these respects tends to promote the prevalence of 
error. This holds true generally of all the ordinary subjects of 
speculative inquiry. It holds true pre-eminently of the leading 
points involved in the controversy between Calvinists and Armi- 
nians. There are vague, general, and indefinite positions about 
the divine purposes and plans, and about the divine providence 
and agency, in which both Calvinists and Arminians concur. 
Calvinism may be said to involve, and to be based upon, a con- 
version of these vague and indefinite positions into precise and 
definite doctrines. These doctrines the Arminians refuse to admit, 
— alleging that no sufficient evidence can be produced in support 
of them, and that formidable objections can be adduced against 
them. They refuse to advance to the more profound and definite 
positions, which may be said to constitute the distinctive features 
of Calvinism ; and they insist that men should be satisfied with 
those more superficial and indefinite views in which they and their 
opponents agree. We are not professing to give this as the for- 
mal status qucestionis in the controversy. But this is an account 
of the difference which is correct, so far as it goes ; and it illustrates 
our present position, that imperfect and confused views upon these 
subjects tend to injure truth and to advance error, — -to damage 
Calvinism and to favour Arminianism ; and this, too, even when 
men's views may be so pervaded by ignorance and confusion, that 
they do not themselves perceive this tendency, or do not really 
mean to advance the object to which it leads. 

It is one of the leading features or results of this vagueness 
and confusion of thought upon these subjects, that there has com- 
monly been a great tendency to multiply and exaggerate the dif- 
ferences of opinion which have been expressed regarding them ; as 
if to convey the impression that there was a considerable variety 
of views, out of which men were very much at liberty to make 
a choice as they might be disposed. As Arminianism is at the 
bottom of all this confusion, and as it is promoted chiefly for 
Arminian objects, it has been common for divines of the Church 
of England to magnify differences subsisting among Calvinists, 
and to represent each modification of sentiment that may have 



426 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

been brought out, as constituting a distinct and different doctrine. 
This process tends to increase the general mass of confusion 
attaching to the whole subject, and to excite a special prejudice 
against Calvinism, as if its supporters were divided among them- 
selves on points of fundamental importance, and had not any 
uniform and well-settled position to occupy. We may refer to 
some historical illustrations of this feature of the controversy. 

The first person of any consequence who openly taught Armi- 
nianism in the Church of England (not then known by that name) 
was Peter Baro, a Frenchman, who had held the office of Margaret 
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge for about twenty years. It 
was his teaching Arminianism, in opposition to the general doctrine 
of the Reformers, that occasioned the preparation of the famous 
Lambeth Articles in 1595, — a transaction, the history of which 
affords conclusive evidence of the general prevalence of Calvinism 
in the Church of England till the end. of the sixteenth century. 
In 1596 he had to resign his office in the university because of 
his doctrinal views; and on that occasion he prepared a short 
i - exposition of his case, under the designation of " Summa Trium 

de Prsedestinatione Sententiarum," — the three doctrines being, 
1st, Supralapsarian Calvinism; 2d, Sublapsarian Calvinism; and 
3c?, his own Arminianism, which he describes as the doctrine 
held by the Fathers who preceded Augustine, and by Melancthon 
and a few other Protestant divines ; just as if the first and second 
differed from each other as much as they both differed from the 
third. 

Arminius himself made large use of the same unfair mode of 
representation. In his Arnica Collatio with Junius, his predeces- 
sor in the chair of theology at Leyden, he brings forward three 
leading doctrines upon the subject of predestination as prevailing 
among Protestants, and attempts to refute them in order to make 
way for his own. The three doctrines are — Supralapsarianism, 
which he ascribes, unwarrantably, to Calvin ; Sublapsarianism, 
which he ascribes to Augustine ; and a theory intermediate be- 
tween them, — a sort of modification of Supralapsarianism, — which 
he ascribes to Thomas Aquinas.* In his famous "Declaratio 
Sententise," published in 1608, the year before his death, he brings 
forward again the same three opinions as contrasting with his 



* Opera, p. 159. 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 



427 



own, though without associating them historically with the names 
of individuals. He puts first- and most prominently the highest 
Supralapsarianism, and dwells upon it at the greatest length. 
He admits, indeed, at last, that there is not any very material 
difference among these three doctrines, — all held by Calvinists. 
But he has taken care, in the first place, to have the controversial 
advantage of having conveyed the impression, that there is great 
diversity of sentiment among his opponents ; and of having held 
up first and most prominently, in his account of their opinions, 
the highest Supralapsarianism, — the view against which it is easy 
to excite the strongest prejudice, while it has really been pro- 
fessed by comparatively few Calvinists. It is worth while to 
mention, as a curious specimen of elaborate controversial unfair- 
ness, that of the whole space occupied by the declaration of his 
judgment concerning predestination, Arminius devotes four-fifths 
to an exposure of high Supralapsarianism, leaving only the last 
fifth for the statement of the other two forms of Calvinism, and 
of his own anti-Calvinistic doctrine. 

But we mean to confine ourselves for the present to our own 
country. The first elaborate Arminian work produced in England, 
after Laud's patronage had done something to encourage opposi- 
tion to Calvinism, and after Bishop Montague had fairly broken 
the ice, was " An Appeal to the Gospel for the true doctrine of 
Divine predestination, concordecl with the orthodox doctrine of 
God's free grace and man's free will, by John Plaifere, B.D." He 
held a living in the Church of England for a period very nearly 
corresponding to the reign of James VI. in that country, and is 
not to be confounded with Thomas Playfere, a Calvinist, who 
succeeded to the Margaret divinity professorship in Cambridge, 
when Baro lost it in consequence of his Arminianism.* John 
Plaifere begins his " Appeal" with a full and elaborate statement 
of five different doctrines upon the subject of predestination. 
The first, of course, is Supralapsarian Calvinism ; the second is 
Sublapsarian Calvinism ; the third is a sort of intermediate system 



* Mr Goode, in his very valuable 
work, r llie Doctrine of the Church of 
England, as to the Effects of Baptism 
in the case of Infants, has proved that 
all the theological professors, both 
Kegius and Margaret, both at Oxford 



and Cambridge, for a period of at least 
fifty years from the accession of Queen 
Elizabeth, who have left any record 
of their opinions, were Calvinists, 
with the single dubious exception of 
Bishop Overall. — Goode, c. iii. 



428 CALVINISM AND AEMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

between Calvinism and Arminianism, propounded by Bishop Over- 
all, and very similar to what was afterwards called Baxterianism ; 
the fourth he represents as the doctrine held by Melancthon, by 
the Lutherans, and the Arminians ; and the fifth and last is the 
opinion of Arminius himself, of the Jesuit defenders of scientia 
media, and, as he alleges, of all the Fathers before Augustine. 
The first four he regards as erroneous, though in different degrees, 
while he admits that iia all of them there are " some parts and 
pieces of truth, but obscure and mingled with defects." The fifth 
he adopts as his own, and defends it as true ; though he has failed 
to point out any intelligible difference between this and the fourth. 
The substantial identity indeed of the fourth and fifth opinions is 
so obvious, that it is admitted, and the representation given is 
attempted to be accounted for, in the Preface to the republication 
of this work, in a " Collection of tracts concerning predestination 
and providence," at Cambridge in 1719. 

The example set by Plaifere, in this the earliest formal and 
elaborate defence of Arminianism in the Church of England, has 
been largely followed down to the present day, especially in the 
point of multiplying and magnifying differences, in order to excite 
a prejudice against Calvinism, and to shelter Arminianism in the 
confusion and obscurity. Bishop Burnet, in his Exposition of the 
Thirty-nine Articles, has manifested a good deal of candour and 
fairness. He was an Arminian, or, as he himself expresses it in 
his preface, — " I follow the doctrine of the Greek Church, from 
which St Austin departed and formed a new system." But he 
has distinctly admitted, in expounding the 17th Article, that "it 
is not to be denied that the Article seems to be framed according 
to St Austin's doctrine ;" that " it is very probable that those who 
penned it meant that the decree was absolute;" and that "the 
Calvinists have less, occasion for scruple" in subscribing than the 
Arminians, " since the Article does seem more plainly to favour 
them." Bat what alone we have at present to do with is, that he 
follows the common Arminian course, by giving a distinct and 
separate head to Supralapsarianism. According to Burnet, there 
are four leading opinions on the subject of God's decrees or 
purposes, viz. : — 1st, Supralapsarianism ; 2d, Sublapsarianism ; 
3d, " That of those who are called Remonstrants, Arminians, 
or Universalists ; " and Ath, " That of the Socinians, who deny 
the certain prescience of future contingencies." 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 429 

Without further multiplying proofs of this, we come down to 
the present day. We have already stated Faber's classification 
of the leading doctrines upon this subject under the four heads 
of Calvinism, Arminianism, Nationalism, and Ecclesiastical Indi- 
vidualism, — the first three being, in his judgment, false, and 
Arminianism the worst, — while we maintain that three of them, 
including the fourth, which he defends as true, are just Armi- 
nianism, and nothing else. 

There is a book which seems to be in great repute in England 
in the present day, which also illustrates the point we are now 
explaining. It is, " An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, 
historical and doctrinal," by E. Harold BrOwne, B.D., Norrisian 
Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. The third 
edition of it was published in 1856, and a fourth has already 
appeared, though it is a bulky octavo of about 900 pages. We 
have done little more than dip into it ; but we are satisfied that it is 
a highly respectable and useful book, embodying a large amount 
of information, and exhibiting a fair and candid spirit, though cer- 
tainly not free from errors and inaccuracies. The Norrisian Pro- 
fessor begins his exposition of the 17th Article by an enumeration 
and brief statement of the leading theories which have been held 
upon the subject of predestination. According to this author, 
they are no fewer than six, viz. 1. Calvinism ; 2. Arminianism ; 
3. Nationalism ; 4. Ecclesiastical Election. Thus far he has fully 
followed Faber, — ecclesiastical election being just the election of 
individuals to outward privileges, — the elect being just virtually 
the baptized, and the election the visible church. The fifth 
theory he mentions is a somewhat unintelligible piece of com- 
plication, to which no designation is given; and the sixth is 
Baxterianism. This seems to be now, as indeed it has always 
been in substance, a favourite mode of representing the matter 
among the divines of the Church of England. Professor Browne's 
own opinions are not very explicitly brought out. He seems to 
think that the Articles were expressed intentionally in such inde- 
finite and general phraseology as to take in the adherents of several 
of the different theories. His own views seem to be very much 
the same as Faber's, while, at the same time, he concedes that 
there are some scriptural statements which do not easily admit of 
any other sense than a Calvinistic one. 

Mozley's " Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of Predesti- 



430 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

nation/' is one of a different class, and of a higher order, both in 
point of ability and general orthodoxy ; while at the same time it 
affords another specimen of that predilection for the " absence of 
precision" on doctrinal questions, which has so generally charac- 
terized the clergy of the Church of England. It is a work of 
very superior learning and ability, and is really a valuable contri- 
bution to our theological literature. This treatise is substantially 
an exposition and defence of the Augustinian or Calvinistic view 
of predestination ; while at the same time the author seems deter- 
mined, for some reason or other, to stop short of committing 
himself to a full and open assertion of the doctrine which he seems 
to believe. He appears to be always on the point of coming out 
with an explicit and unqualified assertion of Calvinism, when he 
finds some excuse for stopping short, and leaving the subject still 
involved to some extent in obscurity and confusion. It would 
almost seem as if Mr Mozley had some secret and inexplicable 
reason for refusing to come out with an explicit profession of the 
Calvinism to which all his convictions tend to lead him ; and the 
excuses or pretences he assigns for stopping short on the verge 
of a full and open proclamation of this system, are of a very 
peculiar and unreasonable kind. We refer to this very superior 
and remarkable book as another specimen, though in a somewhat 
peculiar form, of the tendency of Church of England divines to 
exhibit and to defend " the absence of precision," in discussing the 
points controverted between the Calvinists and the Arminians ; 
and thereby to involve the statement and exposition of this impor- 
tant subject in obscurity and confusion, — qualities which always 
tend powerfully to promote the prevalence of Arminian error. 

We have brought forward these historical notices to illustrate 
the magnitude and the prevalence of what we believe to involve a 
serious injury to doctrinal truth; and to show the importance of 
attempting to settle, as precisely and definitely as possible, the 
true state of the question — the real meaning and import of the 
main points controverted on the subject of predestination. This 
is important, not so much in reference to the topic which has 
more immediately suggested to us this investigation of it, — viz. 
determining the accuracy of the application of certain historical 
designations, — but chiefly in reference to the far higher object of 
forming accurate and definite conceptions on the whole subject, 
in so far as we have materials for doing so. We believe that it 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 431 

can be proved, that men who admit the divine foreknowledge of 
all events, and who have formed a distinct and definite opinion on 
the subject of predestination, must be either Calvinistic or Armi- 
nian, whether they perceive and admit this or not ; and that 
Whately and Faber may be fairly designated as Arminians, not- 
withstanding their honest repudiation of the name, inasmuch as 
they accord with the views commonly known as Arminian in 
every point of real importance, and differ from them only, if at 
all, on topics that are really insignificant. The determination of 
these questions must, from the nature of the case, depend upon 
the true status qucestionis between the contending parties ; and 
there is no great difficulty in settling this, — although it is true that 
men, notwithstanding its paramount importance, often allow their 
minds to remain in a condition of great uncertainty and confusion 
regarding it. 

In proceeding to consider this subject, we would begin with 
observing, that it tends to introduce obscurity and confusion into 
the whole matter, that men in surveying it are apt, especially in 
modern times, to confine their attention too much to election, — 
that is, to the decrees or purposes and agency of God w r ith refer- 
ence to the eternal destinies of men, without taking in predestina- 
tion or foreordination in general, — that is, the decrees or purposes 
and agency of God with reference to the whole government of the 
world and all the actions of His creatures. The fundamental prin- 
ciple of Calvinism, as stated in the " Westminster Confession," * 
is, " that God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy 
counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatso- 
ever comes to pass." If this great doctrine be true, and be validly 
established by its appropriate evidence, it includes and compre- 
hends, — it carries w 7 ith it and disposes of, — all questions about the 
purposes of God with respect to the eternal destinies of the human 
race. If it be true that God hath foreordained whatsoever comes 
to pass, He must have predetermined the wdiole history and the 
ultimate fate of all His intelligent creatures. If it be true that 
God hath eternally and unchangeably ordained whatsoever cometh 
to pass, it must also be true, — as being comprehended in this posi- 
tion, — that, as the "Confession" goes on to say, " By the decree of 
God for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are 



* C. iii. sec. 1. 



432 CALVINISM AND AKMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to 
everlasting death." It serves some useful and important purposes 
bearing upon the apprehension and establishment of sound doc- 
trine, to have regard to the import and evidence of the funda- 
mental and comprehensive doctrine of predestination, or of God's 
decrees in general ; instead of confining our attention to the more 
limited topics usually understood to be indicated by the words 
election and reprobation. The decrees of God are usually under- 
stood as describing in general the purposes or resolutions which He 
has formed, and in accordance with which He regulates His own 
procedure, or does whatever He does in the government of the 
world. That God has, and must have, formed purposes or resolu- 
tions for the regulation of His own procedure in creating and 
governing the world, must be admitted by all who regard Him as 
possessed of intelligence and wisdom ; and therefore the dis- 
putes which have been raised upon this subject appear to respect, 
not so much the existence of the divine decrees, but rather the 
foundation on which they rest, the properties which attach to 
them, and the objects which they embrace. The main questions 
which have been usually discussed among divines concerning the 
divine decrees in general, or predestination in its widest sense, 
have been these, — 1. Are the divine decrees or purposes in regard 
to all the events which constitute the history of the world condi- 
tional or not? and 2. Are they unchangeable or not? Calvinists 
hold that God's decrees or purposes in regard to everything that 
was to come to pass are unconditional and unchangeable, while 
Arminians or anti-Calvinists deny this, and maintain that they 
are conditional and changeable. But while this is the form which 
the general question has commonly assumed in the hands of theo- 
logians, the real point in dispute comes practically to this : Has 
God really formed decrees or purposes, in any proper sense, with 
respect to the whole government of the world ? It seems plain 
— so at least Calvinists believe — that it is unwarrantable to 
ascribe to a Being of infinite perfection and absolute supremacy 
any purposes or resolutions for regulating the administration 
of the universe, that should be left dependent for their taking 
effect, or being fully realized, upon the volitions of creatures ; 
and liable to be changed according to the nature and results of 
these volitions. And this brings us back again to the simple 
but infinitely important and comprehensive question, Has God 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 433 

eternally and unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to 
pass I There is no difficulty in understanding the meaning of 
this question. The foreordination of every event implies, that 
God from eternity had resolved that it should come to pass, and 
had made certain provision for this result. And the real subject 
of controversy is just this, Has God foreordained, in this the 
only proper sense of the word, whatsoever comes to pass % All 
Calvinists say that He has; and all anti-Calvinists say that He has 
not. Arminians and Socinians equally deny this divine foreordi- 
nation of all events ; while Socinians also deny, but Arminians 
admit, that God foreknew or foresaw them all. The divine fore- 
ordination of all events must either be affirmed or denied, — all 
who affirm it are Calvinists, and all who cjeny it are anti-Calvin- 
ists ; and if, while denying foreordination, they admit foreknow- 
ledge, then they may be fairly and justly described as Arminians, 
because this is the designation by which, for- nearly two centuries 
and a half, the actual doctrinal position they occupy upon this 
fundamental and all-comprehensive subject has been commonly 
indicated. 

Whately and Faber deny the divine foreordination, while they 
admit the divine foreknowledge, of all events ; and therefore, 
according to the acknowledged rules and the ordinary practice 
by which this matter is regulated, they may, without any trans- 
gression of accuracy, or justice, or courtesy, be designated as 
Arminians. 

But it was not this great doctrine of the foreordination of all 
events which Whately and Faber discussed, or seem to have had 
in their view. It comprehends indeed and disposes of the subject 
they discussed ; and it is an act of ignorance or inconsideration, 
tending to involve the whole matter in confusion, that they did 
not take i*~ into account. If they had been familiar with the whole 
subject in this its highest and widest aspect, and if they had seen 
that the settlement of the question of foreordination, as com- 
monly discussed, disposes of the question of election, they would 
scarcely have ventured to deny that they were Arminians. But 
we must see what was their position in regard to the subject which 
they had under consideration, viz. election, or the doctrine of the 
purposes and procedure of God in regard to the ultimate destinies 
of the human race. What is Calvinism, and what is Arminianism, 
on this subject 1 The Calvinistic doctrine is this, that God from 

VOL. I. 28 



434 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

eternity chose or elected some men, certain definite individuals of 
the human race, to everlasting life, — that He determined certainly 
and infallibly to bring these persons to salvation by a Eedeemer, 
— that in making this selection of some men, and in resolving to 
save them, He was not influenced by anything existing in them, 
or foreseen in them, by which they were distinguished from other 
men, or by any reason known to or comprehensible by us, but 
only by His own sovereign good pleasure, by the counsel of His 
own will, — and that this eternal decree or purpose He certainly 
and infallibly executes in time in regard to each and every one 
included under it. This is the Calvinistic doctrine of election ; 
every Calvinist believes this, and every one who believes this is a 
Calvinist. The meaning of this doctrine, solemn and mysterious 
as it is, is easily understood ; and men are Calvinists or anti- 
Calvinists according as they affirm or deny it. The grand ques- 
tion is, — Is this election — such a choice of men to eternal life, on 
the ground of the good pleasure of God — a reality, established by 
scriptural authority, or is it not ? From the nature of the case 
it is manifest, that everything of real importance hinges upon the 
reality of such an election as has now been described ; and that 
the controversy, so far as it involves anything vital or funda- 
mental, is exhausted, whenever it is settled, — that is, practically, 
whenever a man has conclusively made up his mind, either that 
such an election is or is not revealed in Scripture. All men who 
are not Calvinists deny the reality of any such election on the 
part of God; and if, while denying this, they admit that God 
foresaw from eternity the whole of the actual history of each 
individual of the human race, then they are Arminians, — and 
nothing but ignorance will lead them to object to this designation. 
The fundamental principles of the Arminian doctrine upon 
the subject of election — the leading features of the theory which 
has been always historically associated with that name — may be 
accurately exhibited in the two following positions. 1st, That 
God made no decree — formed no purpose — bearing immediately 
and infallibly upon the final salvation of men, except this general 
one, that He would save or admit to heaven all men who should in 
fact believe in Jesus Christ and persevere till death in faith and 
holiness, and that He would condemn and consign to punishment 
all who should continue impenitent and unbelieving. And 2d, 
That if there be any act of God, bearing upon the ultimate sal- 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 435 

vation of particular men considered individually, which may be 
called in any sense an election, or decree, or purpose, it can only 
be founded on, and must be determined by, a foresight of their 
actual' faith and perseverance. 

The first of these is the true proper anti-Calvinistic position, 
held equally and alike by Arminians and Socinians; and con- 
stituting manifestly the main substance of what must be held by 
every intelligent man who has not embraced Calvinism. It implies 
that God did not make an election of particular persons to eternal 
life, and resolve to bestow upon them faith, holiness, and perse- 
verance, in order to secure the end of this election ; but that He 
merely made choice of certain qualities or features of character, 
and resolved to treat them according to their proper nature, in 
whatever individuals they might turn out at last to be found. 
Having formed this general purpose to save those who might 
believe and persevere, and to condemn and punish those who 
might be impenitent and unbelieving, God virtually left it to men 
themselves to comply or not with the terms or conditions He had 
prescribed ; — having no purpose to exercise, and, of course, not in 
fact exercising, any determining influence upon the result in any 
case, whatever amount of assistance or co-operation He may render 
in bringing it about. This must be in substance the ground taken 
by every one intelligently acquainted with the subject, who is not 
a Calvinist. We could easily prove that this ground was taken by 
Arminius and his followers, and really formed the main feature 
of the discussion about the time of the Synod of Dort. The 
Synod of Dort, in their deliverance upon the controversy raised by 
Arminians and his followers in opposition to the Calvinism of the 
Eeformers, not only gave an exposition of the positive scriptural 
truth upon each of the five points, but also subjoined to these a 
rejection of the errors (rejectio errorum) which had been broached 
by Arminians ; and upon the first of the Articles, that on predes- 
tination, the very first of the Arminian errors which the Synod 
rejected and condemned was this, that " the will of God concerning 
the saving of those who shall believe and persevere in faith and 
the obedience of faith, is the whole and entire decree of election unto 
salvation, and that there is nothing else whatever concerning this 
decree revealed in the word of God." * Arminianism was f unda- 



* Acta Synodi, p. 78. Hanov. 1620. 






436 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

mentally and essentially a rejection of the Calvinism taught by 
the great body of those whom God raised up and qualified as the 
instruments of the Reformation. Its leading positions thus came 
to be a denial of the scriptural warrant for such a decree of elec- 
tion as Calvinists usually advocate, and an assertion that the whole 
of what is said in Scripture about a decree of election bearing 
immediately upon the final salvation of men, is exhausted by the 
doctrine, — which, of course, all admit to be true, — viz. that God 
has determined to save all who shall believe in Jesus Christ 
and persevere to the end in faith and holiness, and to consign 
to punishment all who continue impenitent and unbelieving. 

The second position above laid down, states accurately the true 
place and standing of the subject of the foreknowledge or fore- 
sight of faith and perseverance, about which so much is said in 
the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians. We believe 
that it is chiefly from want of clear and accurate conceptions of 
the true logical position and relations of this matter of foreknow- 
ledge or foresight, that so many men are Arminians without being 
aware of it ; or rather that so many honestly but ignorantly repu- 
diate Arminianism while they really hold it. The fallacy which 
leads many astray- upon this point is the notion, that the doctrine 
that the divine decree of election, or the divine purpose to save 
certain men, is based or founded only upon the foreknowledge 
that these men will in fact believe and persevere, is an essential, 
necessary part of the Arminian system of theology ; and affords 
a precise test for determining, both negatively and positively, 
whether or not men are Arminians. This, though a very common 
notion, and one not unnaturally suggested by some of the aspects 
which this controversy has assumed, is erroneous. This matter 
of foreknowledge does not intrinsically and logically occupy so 
prominent and important a place in the controversy — or at least in 
that branch of it which concerns the settlement of the state of the 
question — as is often imagined. Its real place in this department 
of the controversy is collateral and subordinate ; and the practical 
result of a correct view of its position is, that while the founding 
of election upon foreknowledge proves that a man is an Arminian, 
the rejection of this idea is no proof that he is not. The funda- 
mental position of Arminius and his followers was in direct oppo- 
sition to the Calvinistic doctrine of the absolute election of some 
men to everlasting life, based only upon the sovereign good plea- 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 437 

sure of God. They held that this doctrine is opposed to the 
testimony of Scripture, and to right views of the divine character 
and government. But Arminians, while denying that God abso- 
lutely chooses some men to life in the exercise of His sovereign 
good pleasure, admit that He does infallibly foresee everything 
that comes to pass, — that thus the history and fate of each indi- 
vidual of the human race were from eternity present to His mind, 
and of course became in some sense the objects of His actings 
and purposes ; — and that, on this ground and in this sense, He 
might be said to have resolved from eternity to save each indivi- 
dual who is saved. The notion of an election to life originating in 
and founded upon the foresight of men's character and conduct, 
is thus no necessary or fundamental part of the actual position 
which the Arminians occupy. It is merely a certain mode of 
expression into which they can, without inconsistency, throw their 
leading doctrine ; and the use of which involves something of an 
accommodation or approximation to the language of Scripture, 
and of their Calvinistic opponents. Arminians virtually say to 
their opponents, — " We wholly deny your doctrine of election to 
life on the ground of God's sovereign good pleasure foreordaining 
and securing this result ; and the only sense in which we could, 
consistently with this denial, admit of anything like an election 
of individuals to life, is God's foreseeing and recognising this 
result as a thing determined in each case by men's actual cha- 
racter. An election to life in this sense and upon this ground is 
undoubtedly a reality, a process which actually takes place ; and 
we are quite ready to admit it, especially as it seems to accord 
with and to explain those scriptural statements about election on 
which you base your doctrine. In short, if you will insist upon 
something that may be called an election, at least in a loose and 
improper sense, we have no objection to allow an election founded 
on foresight, but we can concede nothing else of that sort." This 
is the true state of matters, and it brings out clearly the subor- 
dinate and collateral place held by the subject of foreknowledge 
in the investigation of the state of the question. 

Some Arminians are willing so far to accommodate themselves 
to the scriptural and Calvinistic usage of language, as to admit 
that, in the sense now explained, God had from eternity His own 
fixed and unchangeable purposes in regard to the admission of 
men individually into heaven ; while others think it more manly 



438 CALVINISM AND ARM1NIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

and candid to avoid the use of such language, when their funda- 
mental principle requires them so thoroughly to explain it away. 
All that is implied in the election of any individual to eternal life, 
in the only sense in which any one not a Cahinist can admit it, is, 
that God foresees that that individual will in fact believe and per- 
severe ; and that on this ground — this being " the cause or condi- 
tion moving him thereto" — He decrees or purposes to admit that 
man to heaven, and to give him everlasting life. The result is 
thus determined by the man himself, — God's decree (falsely so 
called) with respect to his salvation being nothing but a mere 
recognition of him as one who, without His efficacious determining 
interposition, would certainly, in point of fact, comply with the 
conditions announced to him. A decree or purpose based solely 
upon the foreknowledge or foresight of the faith and perseverance 
of individuals, is of course practically the same thing as the entire 
want or non-existence of any decree or purpose in regard to them. 
It determines nothing concerning them, it bestows nothing upon 
them, it secures nothing to them. It is a mere wor/i or name, the 
use of which only tends to involve the subject in obscurity and 
confusion. Whereas, upon Calvinistic principles, God's electing 
decree in choosing some men to life is the effectual source or 
determining cause of the faith and holiness which are ultimately 
wrought in them, and of the eternal happiness to which they at 
last attain. God elects certain men to life, not because He fore- 
sees that they will repent and believe and persevere in faith and 
holiness, but for reasons no doubt fully accordant with His wisdom 
and justice, though wholly unknown to us, and certainly not based 
upon anything foreseen in them as distinguished from other men ; 
and then further decrees to give to these men, in due time, every- 
thing necessary in order to their being admitted to the enjoyment 
of eternal life, in accordance with the provisions of the scheme 
which His wisdom has devised for saving sinners. 

But we are in danger of travelling beyond the consideration 
of the state of the question, and trenching upon the proper argu- 
ment of the case. Our object at present is simply to show, that 
although the idea of the foresight of men's faith and perseverance 
is commonly brought into the ordinary popular mode of stating 
the difference between Calvinists and Arminians, yet it does not 
really touch the substance of the point controverted, so as to be, 
out and out, a discriminating test of men's true doctrinal position. 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 439 

It is rather a certain mode of speaking, by which Arminians en- 
deavour to evade a difficulty, and to approximate to scriptural lan- 
guage without admitting scriptural truth. When men say, as many 
Arminians do, that the divine decree of election is based upon the 
foresight of faith and perseverance, they are virtually saying that 
there is no decree of election, in any proper sense of the word ; 
or, what is practically the same thing, that the whole and entire 
decree of election is God's eternal purpose to save all who shall, in 
point of fact, believe and persevere. Foreknowledge thus does not 
really affect the proper status quazstionis, — the real substance of 
what is maintained on either side, or made matter of actual con- 
troversy ; though it does enter fundamentally into the argument 
or proof, — the Arminian admission of divine foreknowledge afford- 
ing to the Calvinists an argument in favour of foreordination 
which has never been successfully answered. 

It is on such grounds as these that we contend that, while the 
basing of election upon foreknowledge is a proof that men may be 
justly described as Arminians, the declining or refusing to embrace 
this idea is no proof that they may not be justly so designated. 
We believe that erroneous and defective conceptions, on this point, 
are one main cause why men are not aware that they are Armi- 
nians, and unwarrantably repudiate the designation. There are 
various reasons that lead men, who are really Arminians, to reject 
this idea of an election founded on foresight. Some think it more 
manly and straightforward to declare openly that there is no such 
thing as an election to eternal life, instead of grasping at what has 
the appearance of being an election, but is not. Others rather 
wish to leave divine foreknowledge altogether in the background, 
and to say as little about it as they can, either in the statement or 
in the argument of the question. Many, while admitting fore- 
knowledge and denying foreordination, see the difficulties and 
inconveniences of attempting to connect them in this way. The 
attempt to found an election on foreknowledge brings out, in a 
peculiarly palpable light, the fundamental objection of Calvinists 
against the system of their opponents, — viz. that it leaves every- 
thing bearing upon the character and eternal condition of all the 
individuals of our race undetermined, and indeed uninfluenced, by 
their Creator and Governor, and virtually beyond His control ; 
and degrades Him to the condition of a mere spectator, who only 
sees what is going on among His creatures, or foresees what is to 



440 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

take place, without himself determining it, or exerting any real 
efficiency in the production of it, — and who must be guided by 
what He thus sees or foresees in all His dealings with them. All 
this, indeed, can be proved to be involved necessarily in the denial 
of Calvinism; but it comes out very plainly and palpably when Ar- 
minianism is put in the form of maintaining an election founded 
on foresight, and on this account many Arminians shrink from 
that mode of representation. For these reasons, many who zeal- 
ously maintain what is really the essential characteristic feature of 
Arminianism, dislike and avoid the basing of election upon fore- 
sight ; and as this mode of putting the matter is popularly re- 
garded as the distinctive mark of Arminianism, those who avoid 
and reject it are very apt, when their acquaintance with these 
subjects' is imperfect and superficial, to regard themselves as 
warranted in repudiating the designation of Arminians. 

Faber has made it quite manifest that it was chiefly by some 
confusion upon this point that he was induced to abjure Armi- 
nianism, while he really believed it ; and we suspect that this has 
operated as an element, though perhaps not the principal one, in 
producing the same result in the case of Archbishop Whately. 
Faber has developed his views upon these points much more fully 
than Whately, and it may tend to throw light upon the matter 
under consideration, if we advert to his mode of representing it, 
Faber entitles his work, " An Historical Inquiry into the Ideality 
and Causation of Scriptural Election." By the ideality of elec- 
tion, he means the investigation of the question as to what it is to 
which men are said to be elected or chosen ; and by the causation 
of election he means the investigation of the question as to what 
is the cause, or ground, or reason of God's act in so electing or 
choosing them. It is plain enough, from the nature of the case, 
that there can be only two distinct questions of fundamental im- 
portance in regard to the idea of election, — viz. 1st, Did God 
choose men only to what is external and temporal? or 2d, Did He 
also choose them to what is internal and everlasting? In other 
words, Did God choose men only to external privileges and oppor- 
tunities, not determining by any act of His, but leaving it to be 
determined by themselves, in the exercise of their own free will, 
whether or not they shall improve these means of grace, and 
consequently whether or not they shall be saved? or, Did He 
choose them also to faith, and holiness, and heaven, to grace and 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND AKMINIANISM. 441 

glory, resolving absolutely to save those whom He had chosen, and 
to give them everything needful to prepare them for salvation, 
in accordance with the provisions of the scheme which He had 
devised and proclaimed? The cause of election must, in like 
manner, be resolved either into something in men, existing or fore- 
seen, or into something in God himself ; and if everything in 
men themselves be excluded from any causal influence upon God's 
act in election, this is evidently the same thing as tracing election 
to God's sovereign good pleasure — to the counsel of His own will. 
It is by the application of these two pairs of differences that 
Faber discriminates his four different doctrines on election, viz. 
Calvinism, Arminianism, Nationalism, and Ecclesiastical Indivi- 
dualism, — taking some assistance also from another distinction 
of much inferior importance, — viz. that between an election of 
nations or masses of men collectively, and an election of indivi- 
duals. Calvinism he represents as teaching, that the idea of 
election is God's choosing absolutely some men individually to 
eternal life, and that the cause of election is not anything in these 
men themselves, but only the sovereign good pleasure of God. As 
Calvinists, we have no objection to make to this representation. 
Faber rejects the Calvinistic idea of election, but approves of our 
view of its cause. Arminians, according to him, agree with the 
Calvinists in representing the idea of election to be a choosing 
of men individually to eternal life, but differ from them in repre- 
senting the cause of this election to be the foreknowledge of men's" 
character and conduct, or their faith and perseverance foreseen. 
And here we see the fallacy which involves the views of Faber, 
and many others, upon this whole matter in confusion, and which 
we have already in substance exposed. It is only a great ignor- 
ance of the whole bearing and relations of the notion of basing 
election upon foresight, that could lead any man to assert, as 
Faber does, that Arminians agree with Calvinists in maintaining 
that the idea of election is that God chooses some men to eternal 
life. Beyond all question, the fundamental principle of Armi- 
nianism is just a denial of the Calvinistic doctrine, that God 
really, in the proper sense of the word, chooses some men to 
eternal life — a denial that such an election is sanctioned by Scrip- 
ture ; while the idea of representing foreknowledge as the ground 
of election, is merely a collateral subordinate notion, having some- 
thing of the character of an afterthought, and forming no part of 



442 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

the real substance or essential features of the actual position 
maintained. Arminians deny out-and-out that Scripture reveals 
any real election by God of some men to eternal life ; while they 
often add to this denial a statement to this effect, that if there be 
anything in Scripture which seems to indicate an election of some 
men to eternal life, — anything resembling or approximating to the 
Oalvinistic idea of election, — it can be only an election based upon 
a foresight of men's character, which is manifestly, as intelligent 
and candid Arminians admit, no election at all. But, after the 
explanations formerly given, we need not dwell longer upon this 
point. Arminians then are, according to Faber, unsound, both in 
regard to the idea of election, in which, it seems, they agree with 
Oalvinists ; and in regard to the cause of it, in which they differ 
from them. 

Let us attend now to what he says about the two other 
schemes, which are different from both of these. The third is 
what he calls Nationalism, — a doctrine taught by John Locke, Dr 
John Taylor of Norwich, and Dr Sumner, the present Archbishop 
of Canterbury, in his book on Apostolical Preaching. It is this, 
that the election spoken of in Scripture is merely a choice made 
by God of nations or masses of men to form His visible church, 
and to enjoy the outward means of grace ; and that the cause of 
this election is the sovereign good pleasure of God, who gives to 
different ages and countries the enjoyment of the means of grace, 
br withholds them, according to the counsel of His own will. 
Here Faber thinks the causation right ; it being resolved, as in the 
case of Calvinism, into the good pleasure of God. He thinks the 
ideality partly right and partly wrong : right in so far as it re- 
presents election as being only a choice to outward privileges and 
means of grace, and not, as Calvinists and Arminians concur in 
holding, a choice to salvation and eternal life; and wrong, in so far 
as it implies that election has for its object, not individuals, but 
nations or communities. The fourth theory which he expounds, 
and which he labours to prove to be altogether, both in ideality 
and causation, accordant Avith the sacred Scriptures, with primi- 
tive antiquity, and with the symbolical books of the Church of 
England, he calls by the name of Ecclesiastical Individualism. 
In point of causation, it agrees with Calvinism and Nationalism, 
in resolving the cause of election into the good pleasure of God. 
In regard to ideality, it agrees with Nationalism in the funda- 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND AEMINIANISM. 443 

mental point of representing election as a choice of men only to 
the communion of the visible church and to the enjoyment of the 
means of grace, and not to anything implying or securing salva- 
tion ; while it differs from it only in the insignificant point of 
making the objects of election individuals instead of nations. 

It thus appears why it is that Faber represents Arminianism 
as the most erroneous of the three erroneous doctrines. Armi- 
nianism is erroneous both in point of ideality and of causation : 
whereas Calvinism and Nationalism are both right in point of 
causation, and Nationalism is only partially and slightly wrong in 
point of ideality. It must also be very plain, we think, from the 
explanation which has been given, that Faber — while condemn- 
ing and abjuring Arminianism, with, we have no doubt, perfect 
sincerity — is himself an Arminian, and nothing else. The funda- 
mental principle of Calvinists is, that God has absolutely chosen 
some men to salvation, resolving to give them eternal life, and of 
course infallibly executing this purpose. The fundamental prin- 
ciple of Arminians, and of all who are not Calvinists, is and must 
be, that God has made no such decree, — formed no such purpose ; 
that He has not chosen any men to eternal life, or to anything 
which implies or secures it, but only to that which is in itself 
external and temporary, though, if rightly improved, it avails to 
men's salvation, — viz. the communion of the visible church and the 
enjoyment of the means of grace. Faber repudiates the funda- 
mental principles of Calvinism; he strenuously contends for the 
fundamental principle of Arminianism ; and therefore he may be 
justly called an Arminian. 

The subject may also be illustrated in this way. Election is 
frequently spoken of in Scripture, and ascribed to God. Men are 
bound to understand the Scriptures, and they should investigate 
and ascertain what is there meant by election. Calvinists admit 
that election and cognate words are used in Scripture in a variety 
of senses. They admit that God, in fact, chooses nations and 
chooses men individually to the enjoyment of the means of grace ; 
and that this choice of nations and individuals to external privi- 
leges is described in Scripture by the name of election, and is 
ascribed to the good pleasure of God. Thus far all parties are 
agreed. The distinctive principle of Calvinism is, that, while 
election .is used in Scripture in these senses, — to describe these 
processes, — it is also used in a higher and more important sense, 



444 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay Villi 

to describe a process in which God, out of His own good pleasure, 
chooses some men to eternal life, and to the certain improvement 
as well as the outward enjoyment of the means of grace ; and by 
which, therefore, He secures their salvation. God determines the 
outward privileges enjoyed by nations and individuals, — it is ad- 
mitted that whatever He does in time He resolved from eternity to 
do, — and therefore He may be said to have chosen from eternity 
nations and individuals to the outward privileges which they come 
in time to enjoy. Nationalism and Ecclesiastical Individualism 
are thus both true so far as they go. No Calvinist denies either 
the one or the other. They both describe realities, — processes 
which actually take place under God's moral government, — which 
He resolved from eternity to carry through, and which are some- 
times indicated in Scripture by election and cognate words. This 
is certainly true. The question is, Is it the whole truth? Is 
there, or is there not, another and higher sense in which the word 
election is used in Scripture, as descriptive of an act of God 
bearing directly and conclusively upon the salvation of men? 
Calvinists maintain that there is ; Arminians and all other anti- 
Calvinists maintain that there is not ; and this is indeed the one 
essential point of difference between them. Nationalism and Eccle- 
siastical Individualism, — or the choice of nations and individuals 
to the means of grace, — though true so far as they go, viewed 
as descriptive of actual realities, are yet, when represented as 
embodying the whole truth, or as exhausting the senses in which 
election is used in Scripture, just a denial of the fundamental 
principle of Calvinism, and an assertion of the fundamental 
principle of Arminianism; and therefore both Nationalists and 
Individualists are equally and alike, at least when they admit 
foreknowledge, Arminians, and nothing else. 

In the exposition of the scriptural meaning of election, the 
ground taken by Calvinists is this, that whatever other acts of God, 
bearing in any way upon the salvation of men, are or may be 
described by this name, there is an election spoken of in Scripture, 
of which the three following positions can be established : — 1st, 
That it is not founded upon anything in men (foreseen or exist- 
ing) as the cause or reason why they are chosen, but only on 
God's own sovereign good pleasure. 2d, That it is a choosing of 
individuals, and not merely of nations, or masses of men col- 
lectively. And 3c7, That it is directed immediately not to any- 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 445 

thing merely external and temporary, but to character and final 
destiny ; that it is a choosing of men to eternal salvation, and does 
certainly and infallibly issue in that result in the case of all who 
are included in it. Calvinists believe that there is an election 
spoken of in Scripture, of which these three positions can be 
established; and it is the maintenance of all this that makes 
them Calvinists. But the question with which at present we are 
chiefly concerned is, — What is the Arminian mode of dealing 
with these three positions % and what mode of dealing with them 
entitles us to call men Arminians ? 

With regard to the first of these positions, the more candid 
and intelligent Arminians admit, that there is an election spoken 
of in Scripture .which is founded not on anything in men, but 
only on the good pleasure of God. Some Arminians have denied 
this, notwithstanding the clearest scriptural evidence. But these 
have not been the most reputable and formidable advocates of 
Arminianism. There is nothing in their Arminianism that should 
prevent them from admitting this ; and it is only the misapprehen- 
sion and confusion which we have already exposed about the bear- 
ing and relations of the idea of foreknowledge or foresight, that 
could lead any one to suppose that this admission involved them 
in inconsistency, or afforded any presumption that they were not 
Arminians. Arminians, indeed, must repudiate — in order to pre- 
serve anything like consistency — an election to eternal life, founded 
only on the good pleasure of God, and not on anything in men 
themselves. If there were any such election as this, it could be 
founded only upon a foresight of faith, holiness, and perseverance. 
But rejecting any proper election to eternal life, there is nothing 
to prevent them from admitting an election of men to what is 
external and temporary, founded only on the good pleasure of God. 
Whately and Faber both admit what is sometimes called arbitrary 
or irrespective election ; but as it is only an election to outward 
privileges, — which, men may improve or not as they choose, — the 
admission does not afford even a presumption that they are not 
Arminians, although they seem to think it does. 

The second position — viz. that there is an election spoken of 
in Scripture, the object of which is not nations or masses of men 
collectively, but men individually — does not of itself determine 
anything of much importance. Calvinists admit that there is an 
election of nations spoken of in Scripture ; and many Arminians 



446 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

admit that there is also brought before us in the Bible an election 
of individuals as distinguished from masses. If the only election 
spoken of in Scripture be an election of masses or communities, — 
and this, of course, is the distinctive tenet of those who are called 
Nationalists, — it follows that the election could be only to what 
was external and temporary, that is, to outward privileges. And 
it is 'this plainly which has commended the notion to a certain 
class of Arminians. Finding it conceded that there are instances 
in Scripture in which the election spoken of is applied to nations, 
they have bethought themselves of employing this notion for the 
purpose of shutting out Calvinism altogether, by showing that 
there is no other election — no election of individuals — spoken of 
in Scripture; and consequently that scriptural -election is only 
to outward privileges. Nationalism, then, so far from being a 
different doctrine from Arminianism, is merely a form or aspect 
in which Arminianism may be embodied, with something like a 
show of an argument in support of it. The maintenance of 
Nationalism proves that men are Arminians ; while the denial of 
it — in other words, the admission that Scripture speaks also of an 
election of individuals — is no proof that they are not. 

The truth is, that the hinge of the whole question turns upon 
the third position above stated as maintained by Calvinists in 
regard to the meaning of election, — viz. that Scripture does tell 
us of an absolute and unchangeable election of some men to eternal 
life, an election which infallibly secures to these men grace and 
glory. The only conclusive proof that a man is not an Arminian, 
is the proof that he holds this fundamental principle of Calvinism. 
If men do not admit this great distinctive principle of Calvinism, 
they must maintain that the election spoken of in Scripture is 
only an election to what is external and temporary, — that is, to 
privileges or opportunities which men may improve or not as they 
please. It is impossible to examine an Arminian commentary 
upon the scriptural statements concerning election, without seeing 
that the one grand object aimed at is just to establish, that there 
are none of them which prove a real election to grace and glory, and 
that they may be all explained so as to imply nothing more than 
an election to outward privileges. All the leading Arminian 
divines have taken — and from the nature of the case could not 
avoid taking — this ground, in dealing with the scriptural argument 
on the subject of election ; and every one who takes this ground is 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 447 

thereby conclusively proved to be an Arminian. They may 
concede to Calvinists the first two of the positions we have laid 
down in regard to the scriptural meaning of election, — that is, they 
may admit that there is an election spoken of in Scripture which 
is founded only on the sovereign good pleasure of God, and which 
has respect to men individually, and not merely to nations or 
masses. They are quite consistent in their Arminianism, and have 
quite a sufficient basis on which to rest it, so long as they deny the 
third position, and maintain the converse of it ; and by occupying 
this ground they prove themselves to be Arminians. This is pre- 
cisely the case with Faber and Whately. They both deny that 
Scripture gives any sanction to a real election of some men to faith 
and holiness, to grace and glory ; and therefore they are not Cal- 
vinists. They both maintain that the only election spoken of in 
Scripture is an election to outward privileges and opportunities, 
which men may improve or not, according to their Own good 
pleasure ; and therefore (since at the same time they admit fore- 
knowledge) they may be most warrantably held to be Arminians. 
From the explanation which has been given, it must, we think, 
be very evident, that Nationalism and Individualism as explained 
by Faber, instead of being, as he represents the matter, two distinct 
doctrines on the subject of election, different both from Calvinism 
and Arminianism, are just two devices for evading the scriptural 
evidence in support of the former, and for assisting to furnish a 
scriptural argument in favour of the latter. There is very little 
real intrinsic difference between these two Arminian devices for 
answering the Calvinistic argument and evading the testimony of 
Scripture ; for, on the one hand, an election of nations must be 
an election only to outward privileges ; and, on the other hand, 
outward privileges are usually — in the ordinary course of God's 
moral administration — bestowed rather upon nations or communi- 
ties than upon individuals. Some Arminians prefer the one and 
some the other of these two modes of disposing of the Scripture 
testimony in favour of Calvinism ; while others again think it best 
to employ both methods, according to the exigencies of the occa- 
sion. The two together form the great staple of the scriptural 
argument of the whole body of Arminian divines ; and it has been 
no uncommon practice among men to employ the one or the other 
mode of evasion, according as one or the other seemed to afford 
the more plausible materials for turning aside the argument in 



443 



CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 



favour of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, derived from the 
particular passage which they happened to be examining at the 
time. Dr Whately takes the ground, directly and at once, that 
the election ascribed to God in Scripture is not an election to faith 
and salvation, but only to outward privileges or means of grace, 
which men may improve or not as they choose ; while Dr Sumner, 
the present Archbishop of Canterbury, takes the other ground, 
and maintains that scriptural election is a choice not of individuals 
but of nations ; and thus, of course, comes round to the same 
inevitable Arminian position, by a slightly different and somewhat 
more circuitous process.* 

We are almost ashamed to have dwelt so long, and with such 
reiteration, upon these matters. But when we find it gravely put 
forth by such a writer as Faber, that Calvinism, Arminianism, 
Nationalism, and Ecclesiastical Individualism, indicate four dif- 
ferent theories upon the subject of election, — Arminianism being 
at once more erroneous in itself, and yet nearer to Calvinism, than 
either of the other two ; when we find the same views of the 
general import of these alleged theories brought out by one at 



* Dr Whately has adverted to and 
explained the difference between him- 
self and Dr Sumner in the Introduc- 
tion to his Essays ; and as the passage 
establishes the accuracy of the repre- 
sentation we have given of the views 
of both parties, we shall quote it : "I 
have been informed that some of the 
hearers of the discourse, of which the 
third Essay contains the substance, 
understood the argument in s. 2 to be 
merely a repetition of Archbishop Sum- 
ner's in his valuable work on '.Aposto- 
lical Preaching.' Such a misappre- 
hension is, I trust, less likely to take 
place in the closet ; but to guard against 
the possibility of it, it may be worth 
while here to remark, that though I 
coincide with Archbishop Sumner in his 
conclusion, the arguments by which we 
respectively arrive at it are different. 
The distinction which he dwells on, is 
that between national and individual 
election ; that on which I have in- 
sisted is, the distinction between elec- 
tion to certain privileges and to final 
reward ; he, in short, considers prin- 
cipally the parties chosen, whether 



bodies of men or particular persons : 
I, the things to which they are chosen ; 
whether to a blessing, absolutely, or to 
the offer of one conditionally." (Intro- 
duction, p. xix.) And in a footnote 
to the third section of the Essay itself, 
he again adverts to the difference in 
this way (p. 75): "The view here 
taken of election some have hastily 
supposed to be at variance with that 
of Archbishop Sumner in his ' Apos- 
tolical Preaching,' whileothers have no 
less erroneously supposed them iden- 
tical." The views of the two Most 
Reverend Primates on the subject of 
the scriptural meaning of election are 
certainly neither at variance nor iden- ' 
tical. But the difference between them 
is very small ; and they are both most 
thoroughly accordant with the funda- 
mental principle of the Arminian doc- 
trine upon this subject. Indeed, the 
two together form the most ordinary 
and familiar commonplace of the 
general current of Arminian writers 
in dealing with the scriptural evi- 
dence. 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 449 

present holding the office of a professor of divinity in the Univer- 
sity of Cambridge, in a work which seems to be in great repute, 
having gone through four editions in the course of the last seven 
or eight years ; and when we reflect upon the various indications 
presented, that these views of Faber and Professor Browne pass 
current as undoubted truths among many of the clergy of the 
Church of England, we cannot but believe that ignorance, mis- 
apprehension, and confusion are widely prevalent upon these 
subjects, and that there is an imperative call to attempt to dispel 
this thick darkness, while at the same time we cannot but feel 
that it may probably not be easy to effect this. We have surely 
said enough to prove — 1st, That there are just two really dis- 
tinct theories upon this subject which, with substantial historical 
accuracy, may be called Calvinism and Arminianism, — that the 
great point which forms the proper subject of controversy between 
Calvinists and Arminians is the existence or the non-existence, 
the affirmation or the negation, of a real decree, or an absolute 
purpose of God, formed from eternity, originating in His sovereign 
good pleasure, choosing some men to eternal life, and effectually 
securing that these men shall have grace and glory ; 2d, That it 
is a thorough fallacy to represent Arminianism — as is done by 
Faber and Professor Browne — as countenancing any proper decree 
or purpose of God really bearing upon the salvation of men, — a 
fallacy arising from the want of a right perception of the true 
bearing and relations of the idea of foreknowledge or foresight, as 
it has been brought into the discussion of this subject ; and 2>d, 
That Nationalism and Individualism, instead of being theories 
differing from Arminianism, are just forms or aspects of it, — or 
rather, perhaps, attempts at arguments in support of it. All who 
believe that Scripture establishes the existence of such an election 
as is described in the first of these positions, are Calvinists ; and 
all who deny this, provided they at the same time admit the 
divine foreknowledge, are Arminians. When tried by this, — 'the 
only really sound and searching test, — Faber and Whately are 
undoubtedly Arminians ; and there is no violation of historical 
accuracy or of substantial justice in applying to them that desig- 
nation, notwithstanding that they through misapprehension dis- 
claim it. 

Br Whately, in his latest work, "The Scripture Doctrine 
concerning the Sacraments," has a remark which bears upon this 

VOL. I. 29 



450 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

matter, and may require to be adverted to. He says there,* " It 
is utterly improper that any should be called either by themselves 
or by others ' Calvinists,' who dissent from any part of what 
Calvin himself insists upon as a necessary portion of his theory;" 
and upon this principle he would probably contend that it is 
" utterly improper to call him an Arminian," since he dissents from 
w some part of what Arminius insists upon as a necessary portion 
of his theory." Personally we have no objection to the principle 
of the rule indicated by Dr Whately. We could not, even if so 
disposed, escape from the imputation of being Calvinists, by 
alleging that we dissent from any part of what Calvin insisted 
upon as a necessary portion of his theory, though we do dissent 
from some of his opinions. But in regard to the application of Dr 
Whately's remark to his own case, we venture to affirm, 1st, That 
the rule which he lays down about the application of such desig- 
nations is unnecessarily and unwarrantably stringent; and 2d, 
That even conceding the soundness of this stringent rule, we are 
perfectly warranted in calling him an Arminian. 

1st, The rule is unduly stringent. This matter must be settled 
— for there is no other standard applicable to the point — by 
considering the practice of the generality of divines of different 
denominations. Now, there can be no doubt that it is a common 
and usual thing for divines to apply such designations as those 
under consideration in a wider and more indefinite way than 
Dr Whately's rule would sanction. Calvinism, Arminianism, and 
similar names, are generally employed to indicate, not so much 
the actual views held by Calvin, Arminius, and others, but rather 
the general system of doctrine which these men did much to bring- 
out and to commend, even though it may have been considerably 
modified in some of its features by the discussion to which it has 
been subsequently subjected. Controversy conducted by compe- 
tent persons usually leads — though it may be after an interval, 
and even after the removal of the original combatants — to clear 
up and modify men's views upon both sides ; and yet, for the sake 
of convenience, the same compendious designations may still be 
retained. The general practice of divines sanctions this use of 
these names, though it is manifest that they must often be em- 
ployed in a somewhat vague and ambiguous way, — there being no 



* Note, p. 13. 



Essay VIII. J CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 451 

precise or definite standard to which reference can be made, in 
order to determine their proper meaning and import. This un- 
avoidable vagueness and uncertainty in the use and application 
of those words, leaves much room for carping and quibbling when 
men are disposed to evade or escape from a difficulty, But even 
with this drawback, there is much convenience in the use of such 
designations ; the general usage of theologians sanctions it ; and it 
is trifling to make an outcry about any matter of this sort, unless 
in a case of gross and deliberate unfairness, Calvin and Arminius 
must not be held responsible for any opinions which they have not 
themselves expressed. Still there is no great difficulty in distin- 
guishing between their personal opinions and the leading features 
of the systems of theology to which their names have been attached, 
as these seem to be logically related to each other, and as they have 
been commonly set forth by the most eminent divines of either 
denomination. Arminius never positively and decidedly renounced 
the Calvinistic doctrine of the certain perseverance of believers ; 
but no one has ever had any hesitation about calling the denial 
of this doctrine Arminianism, upon these grounds — 1st, That 
logically it forms a natural, necessary part of the Arminian sys- 
tem of theology, although Arminius himself did not perceive this, 
and did not insist upon it as a necessary portion of his theory ; 
and 2d, That historically, the doctrine of perseverance has been 
denied by the great body of those divines who, ever since Ar- 
minius's time, have been called after his name. It is true, on the 
one hand, that men of sense do not suppose that these designa- 
tions — even when applied in a way which, general usage warrants 
— afford of themselves anything like a proof either of the truth or 
the falsehood of the doctrines to which they are attached ; and it 
is also true on the other, that men of sense will not raise an outcry 
about the application of one of these designations to themselves, if 
their views agree in the main with the general system of doctrine 
to which this designation has been usually applied. We would 
not object to be called Calvinists, though we differed much more 
widely from Calvin's own views than we do, nay, even though we 
dissented from some point which " Calvin himself insisted upon 
as a necessary portion of his theory," so long as we held the 
fundamental distinguishing principles of that scheme of theology 
with which his name is usually associated. 

But 2d, Though Dr Whately's rule is unduly stringent, still 



452 



CALVINISM AND ARM1NIANISM. [Essay VIII. 



its fair application does not prove the nnwarrantableness of calling 
him an Arminian. Not only does he hold all the fundamental 
distinguishing principles of the system of theology which has been 
generally known in the history of the Church under the name of 
Arminianism, as expounded by the generality of the most eminent 
divines who have accepted that, name for themselves, but he 
does not dissent from any part of what Arminius himself insisted 
upon as a necessary portion of his theory ; nay, he does not dissent 
from Arminius, or from the general body of Arminian divines, in 
any doctrine of real importance. Arminius was very unwilling 
to bring out, honestly and explicitly, his peculiar opinions. It 
was only in 1608, the year before his death, that he was induced 
to come out with a profession of his doctrines ; and even then his 
conduct was not very manly and straightforward. We have four 
different statements, more or less explicit, prepared by him in 
that year, of his sentiments upon predestination. They are to 
be found in his works.* We are unable to perceive any material 
difference between the views of Arminius — as there stated — and 
those of Dr Whately ; and we are confident that no such difference 
can be established. Dr Whately, in asserting that he is neither 
a Calvinist nor an Arminian, must be understood as intending 
to ^affirm that he differs in some points of real importance, not so 
much from the opinions of Calvin and Arminius, as from the 
leading views on the subject of election that have commonly been 
held by Calvinistic and Arminian divines. He probably also in- 
tended, in making this statement, to convey the idea that his views 
lay somewhere between the one system and the other ; or, in other 
words, that he neither went so far in one direction as the Calvinists, 
nor so far in the opposite direction as the Arminians. If this 
was his intention — as it seems to have been — the fact would only 
show how imperfect is his knowledge of these matters. For it is 
evident that in so far as anything like a material difference from 
Arminius could be pointed out, it is to be found principally in this 
direction, that Arminius retained more of the doctrines generally 
held by Calvinists than Dr Whately has done. But whatever 
there be in this, it is certain that he holds the whole substance 



* His works in Latin (Leyden edi- 
tion of 1629), at pp. 119, 138-45, 943, 
and 951 : or in Nichol's Translation of 



the Works of Arminius, vol. i. pp. 
529, 681-699, and vol. ii. pp. 698 and 
718. 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 453 

of what has been well known in the history of the Protestant 
church for the last two centuries as Arminianism, as opposed 
to Calvinism, and differing somewhat from Socinianism, on this 
subject ; and that therefore we are fully warranted, by the ordi- 
nary, reasonable, and convenient practice of theologians, to call 
him an Arminian. We must be careful, indeed, to ascribe to 
him no opinions which he has not professed or acknowledged. 
But he has no right to demand that, because he has a dislike to 
the designation Arminian, we must have recourse to circumlocu- 
tion in indicating his theological position, when he is utterly 
unable to prove that calling him an Arminian involves inaccuracy 
or injustice, or implies any deviation from the mode of dealing 
with such topics which is sanctioned by the ordinary practice of 
theologians. 

Faber having written a book upon the subject of election, and 
having there brought out his views fully and elaborately, has 
made it manifest what were the grounds that led him to believe 
that he was not an Arminian ; and we have had no difficulty in 
pointing out the source of the fallacy in his case. Whately has 
referred to this matter only incidentally, and has not gone into 
any formal or elaborate exposition of the different theories which 
have been held regarding it. In this way, while he has afforded 
us abundant ground for believing that he is an Arminian, and 
for calling him by that name, he has not told us explicitly or in 
detail what are the grounds on which he considers himself war- 
ranted to repudiate the designation. Our views upon this point 
must therefore be inferential, and to some extent conjectural. 
We think there are some indications, in his statements upon the 
subject of election, showing that he was to some extent misled 
by the same fallacy about the relation between election and fore- 
knowledge which we have exposed in the case of Faber.- They 
both concur in rejecting the Arminian interpretation of Rom. viii. 
29, "Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be 
conformed to the image of His Son ; " and of 1 Pet. i. 2, " Elect 
according to the foreknowledge of God;" — denying, as Calvinists 
do, that these passages afford a warrant for basing election upon 
foresight.* And there are other indications — though none, so far 
as we remember, of a very explicit kind — that Whately concurred 



* Faber, pp. 232 and 344-5 ; Whately, p. 67, Ed. Seventh. 



454 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

with Faber in rejecting altogether the idea of basing election upon 
foresight ; and in imagining that, in rejecting this idea, he was 
abjuring the fundamental, distinctive principle of Arminianism. 
We have said enough, we think, to show that any such notion can 
originate only in a very defective and superficial knowledge of the 
intrinsic merits of this great controversy. 

We have had occasion to refer to some points on which Dr 
Whately has expressed opinions different from those held by the 
generality of Arminians. These we have always regarded as 
eminently creditable to him, especially as we could not but view 
them as the concessions of an opponent. It is probably on these - 
differences that he founds his warrant and right to deny that he 
is an Arminian. We think it proper to advert to these points of 
difference, not merely for the purpose of showing that they afford 
no ground for his abjuring the designation, but for the more 
important object of bringing out the valuable concessions thus 
made to Calvinism by one whom we must still take the liberty of 
calling an Arminian. 

The first point of this nature which we would notice we have 
already adverted to. It is one which only partially comes under 
the present head, as the same concession has been made by many 
Arminians. It is this, that Dr Whately distinctly admits that 
the word election, as used in Scripture, " relates, in most instances, 
to an arbitrary, irrespective, unconditional decree;" and shows 
that those who endeavour to answer the Calvinistic argument 
founded upon the Scripture passages where election and its cog- 
nates occur, by denying this, are incapable of maintaining the 
position they have assumed.* There are some Arminians who are 
so afraid of admitting anything that might be called " arbitrary, 
irrespective, or unconditional" in God's purposes or procedure in 
regard to men, that they labour, in spite of the strongest oppos- 
ing evidence, to exclude everything of this nature from every 
passage in Scripture where the words occur. But Dr Whately, 
and many of the more sagacious and candid Arminians, admit that 
this mode of dealing with the matter is unnecessary and unwar- 
rantable. They could not indeed believe in any arbitrary, irre- 
spective, unconditional decree of God bearing directly upon men's 
salvation, and exerting a determining influence upon the result. 



* Pp. 78-80. Edition Seventh, 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 455 

And, as we have fully explained, the fundamental, distinctive 
principle of all anti-Calvinists — Arminians included — is just to 
deny that any such decree was or could be formed. But there is 
nothing in point of consistency to make it impossible for Arminians 
to admit an arbitrary, irrespective, and unconditional election, 
provided it be an election not to faith and salvation, to holiness 
and heaven, to grace and glory, but only to what is external and 
temporary, to outward privileges or means of grace ; it being still 
dependent on men's free will to improve or not their opportunities, 
and thus to attain or not to eternal life. Any such thing as an 
election to salvation could, upon anti-Calvinistic principles, be 
based only upon a foresight of what men individually would 
actually be and do ; and in fairness and reason this could not 
properly be called an election. But an election to outward 'privileges 
or means of grace might be based upon the sovereign good pleasure 
of God, as it exerts no efficacious determining influence upon men's 
eternal destiny. Dr Whately denies the existence of any real 
election of some men by God to eternal, life, and admits only an 
election to the means of grace. This is a conclusive proof that he 
is an Arminian ; and the proof is not in the least affected by his 
admission, that this election of some, whether nations or indivi- 
duals, to outward privileges, is "arbitrary, irrespective, and un- 
conditional," — in other words, is founded on the sovereign good 
pleasure of God, and not on anything existing or foreseen in 
men themselves. 

Some of the other concessions which Dr Whately has made to 
Calvinists are points in which he has few or none of the Armi- 
nians to countenance him, and they are therefore all the more 
creditable to his sagacity and candour ; while at the same time 
we may say of them, in general, that they cannot be of any avail 
in proving that he may not be warrantably called an Arminian, 
inasmuch as they do not affect the state of the question, or the 
real meaning and import of the actual positions held on either 
side and controverted between the two parties, but only the force 
and value of some of the arguments employed in conducting the 
contest. 

The second — and in some respects the most important — of 
these concessions is the admission that the arguments commonly 
adduced against Calvinism, derived from the moral attributes and 
government of God, are unsatisfactory and invalid ; and that the 



456 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

grand difficulty of this whole subject applies to every system, inas- 
much as it attaches to the facts — admitted by all — of the introduc- 
tion and permanent continuance of moral evil. His views upon 
these subjects are brought out not only in his " Essay on Election," 
but also in what he has said in connection with the Discourse of 
his predecessor, Archbishop King, on Predestination, which he has 
republished, with Notes and an Appendix, in the later editions of 
his "Bampton Lectures." He has fully adopted, as had been 
previously done by his friend Bishop Copleston, in his " Inquiry 
into the Doctrines of Necessity and Predestination," the leading 
principle, expounded in King's famous Discourse. The principle 
is in substance this (we are not called upon to go into any details 
upon the point), that we know too little about God and the 
divine attributes and perfections, to warrant us in drawing con- 
clusions from them as to the divine procedure ; that the divine 
attributes, while infinitely superior in degree, are: — though called 
by the same names — not the same in kind as those which we 
ourselves possess ; that our knowledge of them is almost wholly, 
if not altogether, analogical; and that, therefore, we are not 
entitled to draw inferences or conclusions about the divine pro- 
cedure from the divine power and knowledge, or from the divine 
justice and holiness, as we would from the same qualities in 
men. There is as much truth in this general principle, as to 
lay a good ground for condemning much presumptuous and ill- 
founded speculation, which has been brought to bear upon the 
discussion of this subject. But the principle is surely carried 
too far, when it is laid down so absolutely that our knowledge 
of God's attributes is wholly analogical, and does not warrant 
any inferences as to the mode of the divine procedure. The 
incomprehensibility of Jehovah — the infinite distance between a 
finite and an infinite being — should ever be fully recognised and 
acted on. But Scripture and right reason seem plainly enough 
to warrant the legitimacy and propriety of some inferences or 
conclusions as to God's procedure, derived from the contemplation 
of His attributes. King developed the leading principle of his 
Discourse for anti-Calvinistic purposes ; and Copleston brought it 
forward — to use a favourite phrase in the present day — in the same 
dogmatic interest. Their object was to wrest, by means of it, 
from the hands of Oalvinists, the formidable arguments usually 
adduced against Arminianism, derived from God's power, know- 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 



457 



ledge, and wisdom, which are often spoken of as His natural 
attributes.* Dr Whately, with superior sagacity and candour, 
sees and admits that this principle, if true and sound, is equally 
available for wresting from the hands of Arminians the arguments 
they have been accustomed to adduce against Calvinism, derived 
from what are often called God's moral attributes — His holiness, 
justice, and goodness. The great staple of the argument against 
Calvinism has always been, that the procedure which it ascribes 
to God is inconsistent with the holiness, justice, and goodness 
which all attribute to Him. If the argument derived from this 
source must be thrown aside as unwarrantable and invalid, — and 
Whately concedes this as necessarily involved in the fair applica- 
tion of King's principle, — Arminians are stripped of by far the 
most plausible things they have to adduce. They may still, in- 
deed, consistently retain their leading position upon other grounds. 
They may still deny the fundamental principle of Calvinism, 
though deprived of what has been always felt to be the most for- 
midable argument against it; and this is, indeed, just the position 
occupied by Dr Whately. He still holds that there are good and 
sufficient grounds for rejecting the Calvinistic doctrine, though he 
declines to make any use of the common argument against it, 
derived from God's moral attributes. The abandonment of this 
argument as unsatisfactory, does not produce any change in the 
actual doctrines he maintains. The position he occupies may be, 
and in point of fact is, the very same as that of those who con- 
tinue to believe in the validity of the old favourite anti-Calvinistic 
argument; and as the abandonment of this argument does not 



* The adoption and recommenda- 
tion of King's Discourse by Bishop 
Copleston gave rise to some discus- 
sion, the principal opponent being the 
Rev. E. W. Grinfield, in his " Vin- 
dicise Analogicae." We have not seen 
the works published in this contro- 
versy, and our knowledge of them is 
derived mainly from an able review of 
them by the Rev. Richard Watson, 
published originally in the Wesleyan 
Methodist Magazine, and republished 
in the seventh volume of the collected 
edition of his works. It would seem, 
from Watson's statements, that Grin- 
field succeeded in convincing Cople- 



ston, that there were some views of this 
matter which he had not sufficiently 
attended to, and that his commenda- 
tion of King's principle ought to have 
been much more cautious and qualified. 
The truth is, that Arminianism is much 
more dependent than Calvinism upon 
inferences derived from the considera- 
tion of the divine attributes. Watson 
himself, who was much superior to 
Copleston as a theologian, was quite 
well aware that Arminianism would 
lose much more than it would gain by 
the establishment of King's principle, 
and he took part decidedly with Grin- 
field in opposing it. 



±58 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

make him less anti-Calvinistic, so neither can it afford any evidence 
that he is not an Arminian. We must therefore continue to 
regard Dr Whately' s abandonment of King's principle of the 
common argument from God's moral attributes, as the concession 
of an opponent, due to the force of truth ; while we are not called 
upon to attach the same weight to his continued adherence to the 
ordinary Arminian ground of the invalidity of the argument in 
favour of Calvinism, derived from God's natural attributes. Cal- 
vinists do not, in general, admit the soundness of King's principle. 
They think they can establish the invalidity of the Arminian 
argument from the divine perfections upon other and more specific 
grounds ; and thus they profess to be able to show, that they are 
warranted in accepting the concession of Dr Whately, as to the 
utterly precarious and uncertain character of the argument against 
Calvinism, from its alleged inconsistency with God's moral attri- 
butes ; without at the same time needing to renounce the argu- 
ment in favour of Calvinism and against Arminianism, derived 
from the consideration of His natural attributes. 

The substance of this important concession is also presented 
by Dr Whately, in a more definite and specific form. He virtually 
admits that the arguments which have been commonly adduced 
against Calvinism on account of its alleged inconsistency with 
God's moral attributes, really apply to and tell against actual facts, 
— undoubted realities occurring under GodVmoral government, — 
that they thus prove too much, and therefore prove nothing ; in 
short, that the real difficulty is not anything peculiar to Calvinism, 
but just the introduction and the permanence of moral evil, — an 
awful reality, which every system must equally deal with and in 
some way dispose of. It is admitted, that whatever God does in 
time He resolved from eternity to do ; and if so, no peculiar or 
additional difficulty attaches to His eternal decree or purpose, as 
distinguished from that attaching to its execution in time, or to 
what God actually does in determining men's character and 
destiny. Whatever takes place in time God resolved from eter- 
nity to produce or to permit ; and the fact of its occurrence proves 
that there was nothing in His character to prevent Him from pro- 
ducing or permitting it ; and, of course, nothing to preclude His 
having resolved from eternity to produce or permit it. By follow- 
ing out these obvious considerations, Calvinists have proved that 
the great difficulty in this whole subject is just the permanent 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 459 

existence of moral evil under God's administration ; and as this is 
admitted on both sides to be an actual reality, the difficulty sug- 
gested by the contemplation of God's moral attributes is thus 
proved to be one which Calvinists and Arminians are equally 
bound, but at the same time equally unable, to solve. All this 
has been proved to demonstration by Calvinists, times without 
number ; and it manifestly removes out of the way by far the 
most formidable and plausible objections by which their system 
has ever been assailed. Anti-Calvinists have never been able to 
devise a plausible answer to this line of argument, so subversive 
of their favourite and most effective allegations. But not one of 
them has ever, so far as we remember, conceded its truth and 
soundness so fully and frankly as Dr Whately has done. This 
concession is so important in itself, and so honourable to him, 
that we must present it in his own words :■ — 

"Before I dismiss the consideration of this subject, I would suggest one 
caution relative to a class of objections frequently urged against the Cal- 
vinistic scheme — those drawn from the conclusions of what is called Natural 
religion, respecting the moral attributes of the Deity ; which, it is contended, 
rendered the reprobation of a large portion of mankind an absolute impossi- 
bility. That such objections do reduce the predestinarian to a great strait, is 
undeniable ; and not seldom are they urged with exulting scorn, with bitter 
invective, and almost with anathema. But we should be very cautious how 
we employ such, weapons as may recoil upon ourselves. Arguments of this 
description have often been adduced, such as, I fear, will crush beneath the 
ruins of the hostile structure the blind assailant who seeks to overthrow it. 
It is a frightful, but an undeniable truth, that multitudes, even in Christian 
countries, are born and brought up under such circumstances as afford them 
no probable, even no possible, chance of obtaining a knowledge of religious 
truths, or a habit of moral conduct, but are even trained from infancy in super- 
stitious error and gross depravity. Why this should be permitted, neither 
Calvinist nor Arminian can explain 5 nay, why the Almighty does not cause 
to die in the cradle every infant whose future wickedness and misery, if 
suffered to grow up, He foresees, is what no system of religion, natural or 
revealed, will enable us satisfactorily to account for. 

" In truth, these are merely branches of the one great difficulty, the exist- 
ence of evil, which may almost be called the only difficulty in theology. It 
assumes indeed various shapes : it is by many hardly recognised as a difficulty, 
and not a few have professed and believed themselves to have solved it ; but 
it still meets them, though in some new and disguised form, at every turn, 
like a resistless stream, which, when one channel is dammed up, immediately 
forces its way through another. And as the difficulty is one not peculiar to 
any one hypothesis, but .bears equally on all alike, whether of revealed or of 



460 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

natural religion, it is better in point of prudence as well as of fairness that 
the consequences of it should not be pressed as an objection against any."* 

" I cannot dismiss the subject without a few practical remarks relative to 
the difficulty in question (the origin of evil). 

" First, let it be remembered, that it is not peculiar to any one theological 
system ; let not therefore the Calvinist or the Arminian urge it as an objec- 
tion against their respective adversaries, much less an objection clothed in 
offensive language, which will be found to recoil on their own religious tenets, 
as soon as it shall be perceived that both parties are alike unable to explain 
the difficulty. Let them not, to destroy an opponent's system, rashly kindle 
a fire which will soon extend to the no less combustible structure of their 
own. 

" Secondly, let it not be supposed that this difficulty is any objection to 
revealed religion. Eevelation leaves us, in fact, as to this question, just where 
it found us. Eeason tells us that evil exists, and shows us in some measure 
how to avoid it. Eevelation tells us more of the nature and extent of the 
evil, and gives us better instructions for escaping it ; but why any evil at all 
should exist, is a question it does not profess to clear up ; and it were to be 
wished that its incautious advocates would abstain from representing it as 
making this pretension, which is, in fact, wantonly to provoke such objections 
as they have no power to answer." f 

These views are, of course, familiar to intelligent Calvinists, 
as furnishing what they regard as a satisfactory answer to the 
most plausible objections of their opponents ; their soundness is 
now for the first time fully conceded by a very able Arminian ; 
and this concession, so honourable to him, may be expected to put 
an end to the coarse and offensive declamation in which Arminians 
have commonly indulged on this branch of the argument, and 
which has usually formed a very large share of their whole stock 
in trade as polemics. 

The only other concession made by Dr What el y to Calvinism 
which we mean to notice is one connected with its alleged prac- 
tical application. It has always been a favourite allegation of 
Arminians, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election tends to lead 
men to be careless about the improvement of the means of grace 
and the discharge of practical obligations, on the ground — as they 
represent the matter — that the result in each case is already pro- 
vided for and secured irrespective of these things. The answer 
to this allegation is, in substance, that it is not only consistent with, 



* Essays, pp. 83, 84. 

f Bampton Lectures, 3d edition, Appendix, p. 555. 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 461 

but tli at it constitutes an essential part of, the Calvinistic doctrine, 
that God has foreordained the means as well as the end, and has 
thus established a certain and invariable connection de facto between 
them. This doctrine of the foreordination of the means as well 
as of the end, not only leaves unimpaired, to second causes, the 
operation of their own proper nature, constitution, and laws, 
but preserves and secures them in the possession of all these. It 
thus, when viewed as a whole, establishes most firmly the actual, 
invariable connection between the means and the end; and in 
its legitimate application, is at least as well fitted as any other 
doctrine can be, to keep alive in the minds of men a deep sense 
of the reality and certainty of this connection. All this Calvinists 
have conclusively proved, times without number ; but Arminians 
have never been willing to concede it, since it completely disposes 
of a favourite objection, which, upon a partial and superficial view 
of the matter, appears very formidable. But Dr Whately admits 
the validity of the Calvinistic answer to the Arminian objection — 
that is, he admits that the Calvinistic doctrine of election, ivhen 
the luhole doctrine is taken into account and fully and fairly applied, 
does not tend to exert an injurious influence upon the improve- 
ment of the means of grace and the discharge of practical obliga- 
tions ; while, at the same time, he tries to make a point against 
Calvinism, by labouring to show, that by the same process by 
which Calvinists prove their doctrine to be harmless or innocent, 
it can be proved to be entirely useless, and to admit of no practical 
application whatever. 

" It has indeed been frequently objected to the Calvinistic doctrines, that 
they lead, if consistently acted upon, to a sinful, or to a careless, or to an 
inactive life ; and the inference deduced from this alleged tendency has been, 
that they are not true. But this is a totally distinct line of argument, both 
in premises and conclusion, from that now adverted to ; and I mention it, not 
for the purpose either of maintaining or impugning it, but merely of pointing 
out the distinction. Whatever may be, in fact, the practical ill tendency of 
the Calvinistic scheme, it is undeniable that many pious and active Christians, 
who have adopted it, have denied any such tendency, — have attributed the 
mischievous consequences drawn, not to their doctrines rightly understood, 
but to the perversion and abuse of them ; and have so explained them to their 
own satisfaction, as to be compatible and consistent with active virtue. Now 
if, instead of objecting to, we admit, the explanations of this system, which 
the soundest aod most approved of its advocates have given, we shall find that, 
when understood as they would have it, it can lead to no practical result 



462 CALVINISM AND AEMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

whatever. Some Christians, according to them, are eternally enrolled in the 
book of life, and infallibly ordained to salvation, -while others are reprobate 
and absolutely excluded ; but as the preacher (they add) has no means of 
knowing, in the first instance at least, which persons belong to which class, 
and since those who are thus ordained are to be saved through the means God 
has appointed, the offers and promises and threatenings of the gospel are to 
be addressed to all alike, as if no such distinction existed. The preacher, in 
short, is to act in all respects as if the system were not true. 

" Each individual Christian again, according to them, though he is to 
believe that he either is or is not absolutely destined to eternal salvation, yet 
is also to believe that if his salvation is decreed, his holiness of life is also 
decreed ; he is to judge of his own state by 'the fruits of the Spirit' which 
he brings forth : to live in sin, or to relax his virtuous exertions, would be an 
indication of his not being really (though he may flatter himself he is) one of 
the elect. And it may be admitted, that one who does practically adopt and 
conform to this explanation of the doctrine will not be led into any evil by it, 
since his conduct will not be in any respect influenced by it. When thus 
explained, it is reduced to a purely speculative dogma, barren of all practical 
results."* 

There is here no abandonment of his anti-Calvinistic position, 
— -nothing that should lead either himself or others to believe that 
he is not an Arminian, — but there is a very explicit abandon- 
ment of a favourite and plausible Arminian objection against 
Calvinism ; and this important concession by such an opponent 
is one of which Calvinists are well entitled to take advantage. 
We cannot enter upon any exposition of the practical application 
of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, for .the purpose of answer- 
ing Dr Whately's allegation, — that, by the very same process of 
explanation by which Calvinism escapes from the positive objec- 
tion of having an injurious or dangerous tendency, it is proved 
to have no practical application whatever, but to be a mere useless 
barren speculation. We think we could prove that this notion is 
a confusion and a fallacy; and that it can be without much 
difficulty traced to this cause, that he has not here made the same 
full and candid estimate, as on some other branches of the argu- 
ment, of the whole of what Calvinists are accustomed to advance 
in explaining the practical application of their doctrine, but con- 
fines his observation to some of the features of the subject, and 
these not the most important and peculiar. We think we could 
prove that it is this alone which gives plausibility to his attempt 



* Essays, pp. 85-87. 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 463 

to show that the Calvinistic doctrine of election, when explained 
by its more intelligent advocates in such a way as to escape from 
the imputation of having an injurious tendency, is deprived of all 
practical effect or utility whatever, and that we should act in all 
respects as if the doctrine were not true. 

In these various ways, and in one or two other points of less 
importance, Dr Whately has made valuable concessions to Cal- 
vinism. In doing so he has been guilty of no inconsistency, 
and we insinuate no such charge against him ; for his deviations 
from the course pursued by other anti-Calvinists affect, not the 
meaning and import of any of the main positions actually held, 
but only the validity of some of the arguments commonly adduced 
in the course of the discussion. He no doubt believes that he 
can still produce sufficient and satisfactory evidence against the 
Calvinistic doctrine of election, though he has felt himself con- 
strained to abandon as unfounded the objections commonly 
adduced against it from its alleged inconsistency with the divine 
character and government, and from its supposed injurious prac- 
tical tendency. We regard these concessions as eminently credi- 
table both to his head and to his heart, to his ability and his 
courage, to his sagacity and his candour. We value them very 
highly as contributions — though not so intended — to the establish- 
ment of what we reckon important scriptural truth. They have 
undoubtedly the advantage of being the concessions of an oppo- 
nent ; for Dr Whately admits that he is opposed to Calvinism, 
though he seems anxious to impress the conviction that he is 
equally opposed to Arminianism. We so highly admire the ability 
and candour Dr Whately has shown in the discussion of these 
topics, and we are so grateful for the valuable concessions he has 
made to what we reckon truth, that we would most willingly 
abstain from saying anything that was disagreeable to him, except 
in so far as a regard to the interests of truth might require this. 
But we cannot retract the assertion that he is an Arminian. 
Were the matter, indeed, now to begin again de novo, we might 
avoid the use of this expression, knowing, as we now do, that he 
dislikes it, and feeling that we could express otherwise, by a little 
circumlocution, all that we meant to convey by it. But having 
been led to use the expression in all simplicity, without imagining 
that it could be objected to or complained of, — and feeling con- 
fident that we can defend the perfect warrantableness of its 



464 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

application to Dr Whately, — it would be an injury to truth to 
retract it, or to refuse, when called upon, to defend it. In one 
aspect, indeed, it is a matter of no importance whether Dr 
Whately, or any man, may or may not be warrantably called an 
Arminian ; for the application of such terms, even when fully 
warranted by ordinary usage, settles nothing about the truth or 
soundness of doctrines. But when a question as to the application 
of the name comes up in such a form, and is attended with such 
circumstances as virtually to involve the whole question of what 
is Arminianism, and wherein does it differ from Calvinism, or 
what is the true status qucestionis in the great controversy between 
Calvinists and Arminians on the subject of Election, then the 
importance of the matter is manifest. Dr Whately's unexpected 
denial that he is an Arminian, plainly raised the questions, What 
is Arminianism, and in what respect does it differ from Calvinism ? 
and whether there be any distinct and definite position that can be 
taken upon the subject of election differing materially from both % 
The works of Faber and Professor Browne seemed to us to indicate 
the existence of a great amount of misapprehension and confusion 
as prevalent upon these questions among the clergy of the Church 
of England, and suggested to us the desirableness of taking 
advantage of Dr Whately's groundless repudiation of the charge 
of being an Arminian, for giving some such explanation of the 
state of the question as we have attempted. Faber has brought 
out fully and distinctly the sources and the grounds of the misap- 
prehension under which he, and no doubt many others, have been 
led to abjure Arminianism while really believing it ; and Dr 
Whately is just as clearly and certainly an Arminian as Faber 
was; but he has not brought out formally and in detail the 
grounds on which he considers himself entitled to deny that he is 
so. We have, in consequence, not ventured upon any explicit 
allegations as to the origin and the cause of the strange fallacy 
under which he labours in repudiating Arminianism as well as 
Calvinism ; but we have examined all the leading points in which 
— so far as we remembered — he has deviated from the common 
course of sentiment and expression among Arminian writers ; and 
we have shown, we think, that these deviations — while highly 
honourable to him, and very valuable concessions to us — imply 
no disbelief or denial of the fundamental distinctive principles of 
Arminianism, and, indeed, do not affect the true state of the 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 465 

question between the contending parties, but only the soundness 
and validity of some of the arguments adduced on the opposite 
sides respectively. 

There is one other feature of Dr Whately's mode of dealing 
with this subject to which we must refer, though we scarcely 
know what to make of it. It is brought out in the following 
passages : — 

"It is on these principles, viz., that the first point of inquiry at least 
ought to be, What doctrines are revealed in God's word? and that we ought 
to expect that the doctrines so revealed should be, not matters of speculative 
curiosity, but of practical importance — such as ' belong to us that we may do 
them ;' — it is in conformity, I say, with these principles, that I have waived 
the question as to the truth or falsity of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, 
inquiring only whether it is revealed.' 1 ''* 

" I am far from thinking harshly of predestinarians, or of deciding that 
their peculiar doctrines are altogether untrue ; though to me they do not 
appear, at least, to be either practical or revealed truths. I do not call on 
them to renounce their opinions as heretical, but merely to abstain from 
imposing on others as a necessary part of the Christian faith a doctrine which 
cannot be clearly deduced from Scripture, and which there is this additional 
reason for supposing not to be revealed in Scripture, that it cannot be shown 
to have any practical tendency." f 

" I wish it, then, to be distinctly understood (1) that I do not impute to 
any one opinions which he disclaims, nor am discussing any question as to 
what is inwardly believed by each, but only as to what is, whether directly or 
obliquely, taught; and (2) that I purposely abstain, throughout, from entering 
on the question as to what is absolutely true, inquiring only what is or is not 
to be received and taught as a portion of revealed gospel truth. For no 
metaphysical dogma, however sound and capable of philosophical proof, ought 
to be taught as a portion of revealed truth, if it shall appear that the passages 
of Scripture that are supposed to declare it, relate in reality to a different 
matter. L I would wish it to be remembered,' says Archbishop Sumner, ' that 
I do not desire to argue against predestination as believed in the closet, but as 
taught in the pulpit.' ."J 

And the same general idea is repeated, without the addition of 
anything else to explain it, in his last work, on the " Doctrine of 
the Sacraments." § 

It is not easy to understand what Dr Whately meant by such 
statements as these. They surely indicate something very like 
confusion, vacillation, and inconsistency. It would almost seem 



* Pp. 84, 85. t P- 96. 

t Pp. 90, 91. § P. 13. 

VOL. I. 30 



466 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

from them as if he had something like a latent sense that Cal- 
vinism, though not taught in Scripture, could yet be defended 
upon such grounds — in the way of general reasoning of a philoso- 
phical or metaphysical kind — as scarcely admitted of an answer ; 
so that he shrank from any formal deliverance on the question of 
its actual truth or falsehood. We do not wonder much at some- 
thing like this state of mind being produced, especially in one who 
discerned so clearly, and who proclaimed so manfully, the weak- 
ness of some of the leading anti-Calvinistic arguments based upon 
topics of an abstract or metaphysical kind. We believe that the 
arguments in favour of Calvinism, derived from reason or general 
considerations, are just as triumphant — viewed as a mere appeal 
to the understanding — as the arguments from Scripture ; and we 
do not wonder that there should occasionally be men who, while 
rejecting Calvinism, should have felt greater difficulty in dispos- 
ing of the metaphysical than of the scriptural proof. This seems 
to be the case with Dr Whately. He appears to have something 
of the feeling, that on the field of general abstract discussion he 
would not like to face a Calvinist; and that this department of the 
argunlent he would rather leave in abeyance than fairly grapple 
with. But, as we have said, we do not know well what to make 
either of the meaning or the consistency of some of his statements 
upon this subject. We must in fairness judge of his theological 
position, chiefly from the views he has expressed as to the meaning 
and import of the teaching of Scripture; and here, certainly, his 
position is not negative or ambiguous. He teaches explicitly 
and unequivocally, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election is not 
taught in Scripture ; and he teaches further, that the only election 
which Scripture sanctions, is an election to outward privileges or 
means of grace, and not to faith, holiness, and heaven. This 
should settle the whole question with all who believe in the autho- 
rity of Scripture ; and the position here maintained is not only 
anti-Calvinistic, but may, when accompanied with an admission 
of the divine foreknowledge of all events, be warrant-ably and 
fairly designated as Arminian. 

We are unwilling to quit this subject without some reference, 
however brief, to the objections by which the Calvinistic doctrine 
of election has been commonly assailed. The leading practical 
lessons suggested by a survey of the controversy, for guiding men 
in the study of it, are such as these : — 1st, That we should labour 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 467 

to form a clear, distinct, and accurate apprehension of the real 
nature of the leading point in dispute, — of the true import and 
bearing of the only alternatives that can well be maintained with 
regard to it. 2d, That we should familiarize our minds with de- 
finite conceptions of the meaning and the evidence of the principal 
arguments by which the truth upon the subject may be estab- 
lished, and the error refuted. 3d, That we should take some pains 
to understand the general principles at least applicable to the 
solution, or rather the disposal (for they cannot be solved), of the 
difficulties by which the doctrine we have embraced as true may 
be assailed. And 4tth, That we should then seek to make a wise 
and judicious application of the doctrine professed, according to 
its true nature, tendency, and bearing, and its relation to other 
truths ; without allowing ourselves to be dragged into endless and 
unprofitable speculations in regard to its deeper mysteries or more 
intricate perplexities, or to be harassed by perpetual doubt and 
difficulty. A thorough and successful study of the subject implies 
the following out of all these lessons, and this conducts us over a 
wide and arduous field. It is on the first only of these four points 
we have touched, — one on which a great deal of ignorance and 
confusion seem to prevail. Of the others, the most important 
is that which enjoins a careful study of the direct and positive 
evidence that bears upon the determination of the main question 
on which the controversy turns. The strength of Calvinism lies 
in the mass of direct, positive, and, as we believe, unanswerable 
proof that can be produced from Scripture and reason, confirmed 
by much that is suggested by experience and the. history of the 
human race, to establish its fundamental principles of the fore- 
ordination of whatsoever comes to pass, and the real and effectual 
election of some men to eternal life. The strength of Arminian- 
ism lies, not in the direct and positive evidence that can be pro- 
duced to disprove Calvinistic foreordination and election, or to 
establish anti-Calvinistic non-foreordination and non-election, but 
mainly in the proof, that God is not the author of sin, and that 
man is responsible for his own character and destiny ; and in the 
inference, that since Calvinism is inconsistent with these great and 
admitted truths, it must be false. This view of the state of the 
case shows the importance of being familiar with the direct and 
positive evidence by which Calvinism can be established, that we 
may rest on this as an impregnable foundation. But it shows also 



468 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

the importance of being familiar with the way and manner of 
disposing of the plausible and formidable difficulties on which 
mainly the Arminians found their case. These difficulties — that 
is, the alleged inconsistency of Calvinism with the truths, that 
God is not the author of sin, and that man is responsible for his 
conduct and fate — lie upon the very surface of the subject, and 
must at once present themselves even to the most ordinary minds; 
while at the same time they are so plausible, that they are well 
fitted to startle and to impress men, especially if they have not 
previously reflected much upon the subject. We do not intend 
to adduce the direct and positive evidence in support of the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine ; but a few brief hints may help a little to show, 
that the difficulties attaching to it are, though not admitting of a 
full solution, yet by no means so formidable as at first sight they 
appear to be; and at any rate furnish no sufficient ground in right 
reason for rejecting the body of direct, positive, unanswerable 
proof by which the fundamental principles of Calvinism can be 
established. The following are some of the most obvious yet 
most important considerations bearing upon this matter, that 
ought to be remembered and applied, and especially that ought to 
be viewed in combination with each other, as parts of one argu- 
ment upon this topic. 

1st, When the same objections were advanced against the 
same doctrines as taught by the Apostle Paul, he manifested no 
very great solicitude about giving them a direct or formal answer; 
but contented himself with resolving the whole difficulty into 
God's sovereignty and man's ignorance, dependence, and in- 
capacity. " Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against 
God ? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why 
hast thou made me thus?" He knew that the doctrines were 
true, because he had received them by inspiration of the Holy 
Ghost ; and we know that they are true, because he and other 
inspired men have declared them unto us. This should satisfy us, 
and repress any great anxiety about disposing of objections based 
upon grounds, the investigation of which runs up into matters, 
the full comprehension of which lies beyond the reach of our 
natural faculties, and of which we can know nothing except from 
the revelation which God has given us. 

2d, It is utterly inconsistent with right views of our condition 
and capacities, and with the principles usually acted upon in regard 



Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 469 

to other departments of Christian theology, — as, for instance, the 
doctrine of the Trinity, — to assume, as these objections do, that 
we are entitled to make our actual perception of, or our capacity 
of perceiving, the consistency of two doctrines with each other, 
the test or standard of their truth. We do not pretend to be able 
to solve all the difficulties connected with the alleged inconsistency 
between the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, and the truths that 
God is not the author of sin, and that man is responsible for his 
character and conduct, so as to make their consistency with each 
other plain and palpable to our own minds or the minds of 
others ; but we cannot admit that this affords any sufficient rea- 
son why we should .reject one or other of the doctrines, provided 
each separately can be established upon competent and satisfactory 
evidence. 

3d, The difficulties in question do not apply to the Calvinistic 
system alone, but bear as really, though not perhaps at first view 
as palpably, upon every system of religion which admits the 
moral government of God, the prevalence of moral evil among 
His intelligent creatures, and their future eternal punishment. 
Indeed, it is easy to show that the leading difficulties connected 
with every scheme of doctrine virtually run up into one great 
difficulty, which attaches, and attaches equally, to them all, viz. 
the explanation of the existence and prevalence of moral evil ; or, 
what is practically the same question in another form, the ex- 
position of the way and manner in which God and men concur 
(for none but atheists can deny that in some way or other they 
do concur) in forming men's character and in determining men's 
fate. This subject involves difficulties which we cannot, in our 
present condition, fully solve, and which we must just resolve 
into the good pleasure of God. They are difficulties from which 
no scheme of doctrine can escape, and which every scheme is 
equally bound, and at the same time equally incompetent, to ex- 
plain. Men may shift the position of the one grand difficulty, and 
may imagine that they have succeeded at least in evading it, or 
putting it in abeyance or obscurity ; but with all their shifts and 
all their expedients, it continues as real and as formidable as ever. 
Unless men renounce altogether, theoretically or practically, the 
moral government of God, the prevalence of moral evil, and its 
eternal punishment, they must, in their explanations and specu- 
lations, come at length to the sovereignty of God, and prostrate 






470 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. 

their understandings and their hearts before it, saying with our 
Saviour, " Even so, Father, for so it hath seemed good in Thy 
sight;" or with the great apostle, "O the depth of the riches 
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable 
are His judgments, and His ways past finding out ! For who hath 
known the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been His counsellor ? 
Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to 
him again 1 For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are 
all things; to whom be glory for ever. Amen."* 



* Bom. xi. 33-36. 



CALVINISM 



DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY.* 



In his " Discussions," Sir William Hamilton makes a theological 
demonstration, of a somewhat imposing kind. It is contained in 
the following passage : — 

" Averments to a similar effect might be adduced from the writings of 
Calvin, and certainly nothing can be conceived more contrary to the doctrine 
of that great divine than what has latterly been promulgated as Calvinism 
(and, in so far as I know, without reclamation) in our Calvinistic Church of 
Scotland. For it has been here promulgated, as the dogma of this church 
(though in the face of its Confession as in the face of the Bible), by pious and 
distinguished theologians, that man has no will, agency, moral personality of 
his own, God being the only real agent in every apparent act of His creatures; 
in short (though quite the opposite was intended), that the theological scheme 
of the absolute decrees implies fatalism, pantheism, the negation of a moral 
governor, as of a moral world. For the premises, arbitrarily assumed, are 
atheistic ; the conclusion, illogically drawn, is Christian. Against such a view 
of Calvin's doctrine and of Scottish orthodoxy, I for one must humbly though 
solemnly protest, as (to speak mildly) not only false in philosophy, but hereti- 
cal, ignorant, suicidal in theology." f 

This strange passage was intended as a deadly assault upon 
Dr Chalmers, and upon the views which he had promulgated 
upon the subject of philosophical necessity. The doctrine here so 
vehemently denounced cannot, from the nature of the case, be 
any other than that commonly called the doctrine of philosophical 



* British and Foreign Evangelical 
Review. January 1858. 

"Discussions on Philosophy and 
Literature, Education aud University 



Reform." By Sir William Hamilton, 
Bart. Second Edition, 1853. 
f "Discussions," p. 628. 



472 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

necessity ; and though many will regard what is here said as very 
unjust and unfair, if viewed as applied to that subject, there 
is manifestly no other to which these statements can have any 
appearance of applying. When it is settled that the doctrine 
which Sir William here denounces is that of philosophical neces- 
sity, — and that, of course, the pious and distinguished theologians 
who are here held up to scorn are Dr Chalmers, and all who, 
professing like him to receive the Westminster Confession, have 
concurred with him in maintaining the doctrine of necessity as 
taught by Jonathan Edwards, — men will be able to understand 
something more of the import and object of the passage. 

We do not of course intend to plunge into the mare magnum 
of the general subject of philosophical necessity as connected 
w r ith " absolute decrees," " fatalism," " pantheism," " negation of a 
moral governor," etc., on which Sir William here declaims. The 
general subject brought before us by these statements is the most 
perplexing and mysterious that has ever occupied the mind of man. 
No one acquainted with the discussions which have taken place 
regarding it, can fail to have reached these two conclusions : — 1st, 
That everything of any worth or value that can be said upon the 
subject, has been said in substance a thousand times; and 2d, 
That after all that has been said, there are difficulties and mys- 
teries connected with it which never have been fully solved, and 
which manifestly never will be fully solved, at least until men get 
either more enlarged mental faculties, or a fuller revelation from 
God. The practical result of the adoption of these conclusions, 
which must have forced themselves upon all who have intelligently 
surveyed this subject, is to render men rather averse to unneces- 
sary discussions regarding it, — to make them less anxious about 
answering objections and clearing away difficulties, and more will- 
ing to rest upon those fundamental principles which constitute the 
direct and proper evidence of what seems to be the truth upon 
the point. This state of mind and feeling — the reasonable result 
of a deliberate survey of the discussions which have taken place 
upon the matter — is sanctioned also by the example of the Apostle 
Paul, who, when the same objections were brought against his 
doctrines as have in all ages been brought against Calvinism, 
resolved the whole matter into the inscrutable sovereignty of God 
and the ignorance and helplessness of man, instead of directly and 
formally grappling with the objection. Sir William Hamilton's 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 473 

own views upon the subject are of a kind fitted to discourage, if 
not to preclude, discussion ; especially discussion conducted in the 
way of bringing the opposite doctrines face to face, and trying 
to make an estimate of the comparative force of the objections 
against them. His views are briefly indicated in the following 
passages : — 

" The philosophy, therefore, which I profess, annihilates the theoretical 
problem, — How is the scheme of liberty or the scheme of necessity to be ren- 
dered comprehensible ? — by showing that both schemes are equally inconceiv- 
able ; but it establishes liberty practically as a fact, by showing that it is 
either itself an immediate datum, or is involved in an immediate datum, of 
consciousness."* 

" How the will can possibly be free, must remain to us, under the present 
limitation of our faculties, wholly incomprehensible. We are unable to con- 
ceive an absolute commencement ; we cannot therefore conceive a free voli- 
tion. A determination by motives cannot, to our understanding, escape from 
necessitation."f 

" How therefore, I repeat, moral liberty is possible in man or God, we are 
utterly unable speculatively to understand. But practically, the fact, that we 
are free, is given to us in the consciousness of an uncompromising law of duty, 
in the consciousness of our moral accountability." f 

" Liberty is thus shown to be inconceivable, but not more than its contra- 
dictory necessity ; yet though inconceivable, liberty is shown also not to be 
impossible. The credibility of consciousness, to our moral responsibility, as 
an incomprehensible fact, is thus established." J 

" This hypothesis alone accounts for the remarkable phenomenon which 
the question touching the liberty of the will — touching the necessity of human 
actions — has in all ages and in all relations exhibited. This phenomenon is 
the exact equilibrium in which the controversy has continued ; and it has 
been waged in metaphysics, in morals, in theology, from the origin of specu- 
lation to the present hour, with unabated zeal, but always with undecided 
success." § 

It appears from these statements that Sir William, by his own 
admission, has thrown no new light upon this subject ; and that 
he claims credit for scarcely anything more than bringing out 
clearly, by an application of the doctrine of the conditioned, that 
there are, and must ever be, insoluble difficulties attaching to it. 
Our present purpose does not lead us to advert to the grounds on 
which Sir William based his conclusion, or to the accuracy of the 
language in which his views are expressed. It is enough, in the 



* Reid's Works, p. 599, note. I % " Discussions," p. 630. 

f "Discussions," p. 624. § "Discussions," pp. 631, 632. 



474 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

meantime, that we direct attention to the fact that he proclaims 
the existence of insoluble difficulties as attaching to this subject ; 
and that he admits that he has made, and can make, no positive 
contribution to the explication of it. In substance, he leaves us 
on this whole subject of liberty and necessity very much in the 
position indicated in the remarkable and often quoted passage of 
Locke: "I cannot have a clearer perception of anything than 
that I am free, yet I cannot make freedom in man consistent with 
omnipotence and omniscience in God, though I am as fully per- 
suaded of both as of any truth I most firmly assent to; and there- 
fore I have long since given off the consideration of that question, 
resolving all into the short conclusion, that if it be possible for 
God to make a free agent, then man is free, though I see not the 
way of it."* 

We have no material objection to offer to the substance of the 
statements quoted above from Locke and Sir William Hamilton ; 
but it may be worth while to notice how it is that they concur in 
this view as there brought out, although the one was a Necessita- 
rian and the other was a Libertarian. Locke, though a Pelagian 
in theology, was a Necessitarian in philosophy, — that is, he held 
that doctrine of philosophical necessity, or that view of the laws 
which regulate men's mental processes and determine their voli- 
tions, against which Sir William declaims in the passage on which 
we are commenting. Sir William, on the contrary, makes here a 
sort of profession of Calvinism. He stands forth as the champion 
of Calvinistic orthodoxy, against the errors of its ignorant and 
injudicious friends ; and he gives something like evidence both of 
intelligence and integrity in dealing with this subject, by laying 
down the important position, that "the great articles of divine 
foreknowledge and predestination are both embarrassed by the 
self-same difficulties."! But notwithstanding this, he was in 
philosophy a Libertarian ; for, though he sometimes talks as if he 
thought it impracticable to decide between the opposite opinions, 
he at other times expresses a decided preference for the Liber- 
tarian view; and in the passage under consideration he denounces, 
in no measured terms, the doctrine which is the contradictory cor- 
relative of it. The liberty or freedom for which Locke contended, 
was nothing more than actual moral responsibility for our actions ; 



* Locke, vol. iii. p. 487, folio edition, 1751. f "Discussions," p. 627. 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 475 

which he did not admit to be precluded, either by the doctrine of 
God's omniscience and omnipotence, or by the doctrine of philo- 
sophical necessity, though he was unable to explain how it could 
be reconciled with these doctrines. Sir William, on the other 
hand, was not tied up by any of his opinions to so limited a view 
of what liberty or freedom is, and would no doubt say that, by 
the liberty which he claimed for man, he meant not merely actual 
moral responsibility, which all admit, but also that anti-necessi- 
tarian view of the laws that regulate man's mental operations, 
which has been supposed by many to be necessary as a basis for 
responsibility. But though he would say this, if necessary, and 
could do so consistently, it clearly appears, from a careful exami- 
nation of the statements we have quoted from him, that he, like 
Locke, practically identifies liberty with actual moral responsi- 
bility, and virtually admits, that the only thing which is really 
established by the testimony of consciousness, and which is to be 
maintained at all hazards, is our moral accountability, or the obli- 
gation "of an uncompromising law of duty." Most necessitarians 
— including, of course, all the theologians whom Sir William de- 
nounces — assert man's moral responsibility as fully and readily as 
their opponents ; and if it be merely the fact of moral accounta- 
bility which man's consciousness establishes, as Sir William virtu- 
ally admits, then the whole matter still resolves itself into the old 
and very perplexing question, as to what kinds or degrees of liberty 
are necessary to moral responsibility, and what kinds and degrees of 
necessity are inconsistent with it. Necessitarians, in general, have 
no hesitation in admitting the truth of Sir William's statement,* 
that it is the testimony of our consciousness, "that we are, though 
we know not how, the true and responsible authors of our actions, 
not merely the worthless links in an adamantine series of effects 
and causes." Necessitarians admit this, and undertake to prove that 
there is nothing in the doctrine of philosophical necessity which 
can be shown to preclude either the actual reality or the conscious 
sense of this, as a feature in man's condition. Sir William 
virtually admits that it is only our actual moral responsibility 
to which the direct testimony of consciousness applies; and he has 
not entered anywhere, so far as we remember, into a deliberate 
and formal investigation of the nature and grounds of the liberty 



* P. 624. 



476 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

which is necessary to moral agency. By the denunciations, indeed, 
on which we are animadverting, and which, as we have explained, 
must be intended to apply to the doctrine of philosophical necessity 
as taught by Edwards and Chalmers, Sir William has identified 
himself with the Libertarian view ; and has thus, whether he so 
intended it or not, virtually declared in favour of what has been 
commonly called the liberty of indifference, and the self-deter- 
mining power of the will ; for whatever he might say about the 
inconceivableness both of liberty and necessity, he would not, 
we presume, have denied that the one was the contradictory of 
the other, and that therefore the one was a reality, and the other 
was not. 

But though Sir William has denounced the doctrine of philo- 
sophical necessity, and has thereby, by plain implication, asserted 
a liberty of indifference and the self-determining power of the 
will, he has not entered into anything like argument against 
necessity, or in favour of liberty, beyond simply referring to the 
testimony of consciousness, in proof that we are responsible for 
our actions. This mode of dealing with it is unworthy of a philo- 
sopher, and wholly undeserving of notice as a call to enter upon 
a discussion of the general subject. " It has been here promul- 
gated," he assures us, " as the dogma of this church (' our Calvin- 
istic Church of Scotland'), by pious and distinguished theologians, 
that man has no will, agency, moral 'personality of his own, God 
being the only real agent in every apparent act of His creatures." 
Persons unacquainted with what has been going on in Scotland 
for the last generation, would be disposed to ask, with amazement, 
who are the pious and distinguished theologians who have put 
forth such offensive statements as Sir William ascribes to them ? 
Those who are cognizant of the state of matters amongst us, 
are well aware that no theologians have ever promulgated this 
" dogma ;" while they must know also that the only persons whom 
Sir William could have had in his eye, were Dr Chalmers and 
those who concurred with him in advocating the doctrine of philo- 
sophical necessity. These men certainly never intended to teach 
this ; and they have made no statements bearing the slightest re- 
semblance to those here put into their mouths. But Sir William, 
it seems, was of opinion that the doctrine of philosophical neces- 
sity implied all this, or led to it by logical sequence ; and upon 
this ground he thought himself warranted in proclaiming to the 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 477 

world, without furnishing to us any means of knowing the true 
ground of his assertion, that pious and distinguished theologians 
in the Church of Scotland have promulgated the doctrine, " that 
man has no will, agency, moral personality of his own, God being 
the only real agent in every apparent act of His creatures." After 
this we are not in the least surprised that he goes on to tell us, 
that these men taught that " the theological scheme of the abso- 
lute decrees implies fatalism, pantheism, the negation of a moral 
governor as of a moral world." He admits, indeed, that " quite 
the opposite was intended ; " but still he thinks himself entitled to 
charge them with teaching fatalism and pantheism ; and intimates, 
further, in the immediately following sentence, that they can 
escape from atheism only by gross logical inconsistency. 

In adverting to this charge of fatalism, pantheism, atheism, 
etc., we do not need to take into account what Sir William has here 
introduced into his statement about " the scheme of the absolute 
decrees." Sir William plainly did not intend to bring these 
charges against the scheme of the absolute decrees, simply as such, 
by whomsoever held ; for, indeed, he professes to be writing here 
as a Calvinist, a champion of Calvinism, and of course an advo- 
cate of " the scheme of absolute decrees." And then, again, in 
so far as Dr Chalmers and other theologians may have assumed 
that the scheme of the absolute decrees necessarily implied or drew 
with it the doctrine of philosophical necessity, this is just the 
point where we venture to think that their views are untenable, 
as we shall afterwards more fully explain. Sir William evidently 
intended, by the phraseology he has employed, to tell us that those 
of whom he was speaking regarded the scheme of the absolute 
decrees as implying the doctrine of philosophical necessity ; and 
that, in his judgment, this doctrine of necessity, as held by them, 
implied fatalism, pantheism, atheism, etc. We cannot deny that 
Sir William had good grounds for ascribing to them the belief, 
that the doctrines of the absolute decrees and of philosophical 
necessity are necessarily connected with each other ; and we cannot 
defend the accuracy of this belief. But we do not need to take 
any of these topics into account in judging of Sir William's state- 
ment now T under consideration. That statement is in substance 
this, — that some pious and distinguished theologians of the Church 
of Scotland have recently been teaching that man has no will, 
agency, moral personality of his own, God being the only real 



478 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

agent in every apparent act of His creatures, and that this is 
fatalism, pantheism, atheism; while the only ground he could 
have adduced for these heavy charges, if he had been called 
upon to establish them, was, that Dr Chalmers and some others 
had taught the doctrine of philosophical necessity as a part of 
their Calvinism, and that, in Ms judgment, this doctrine necessarily 
implied all the fearful things which he had laid to their charge. 
The practice of adducing such charges upon such grounds, and 
in such circumstances, is repudiated and denounced by every fair 
controversialist. 

It is always a very unworthy procedure to describe a doctrine 
to which we are opposed, merely by consequences which we think 
deducible from it, but which its supporters disclaim, and then to 
attempt to run it down by attaching to it offensive nicknames. 
But there are some things which make it peculiarly unwarrantable 
to employ this process in regard to such a doctrine as that of 
philosophical necessity. Not only is it true that the doctrine has 
been maintained and defended by a large proportion of the ablest 
and best men that ever lived, — by many of the highest names in 
philosophy as well as in theology ; but, from the nature of the 
case also, viewed both in its intellectual and in its moral aspects, 
there are considerations which aggravate the unreasonableness of 
attempting to dispose of it in such a way. The subject is one of 
great difficulty and intricacy ; and this should have been felt to be 
a reason against attempting to scout it from the field of fair discus- 
sion by a dashing misrepresentation and a far-fetched inference. 
The question virtually resolves, as we have seen, into the investi- 
gation of the nature and grounds of the liberty and necessity that 
are consistent with, or indispensable to, moral agency ; and nothing 
but utter incapacity or gross carelessness can prevent men from 
seeing that this is a subject of extreme difficulty, and one which 
no man, whatever be his standing or his pretensions, is entitled to 
treat in an offhand and reckless way. It is impossible for any 
man to reflect deliberately upon the ideas of liberty and necessity 
as applied, on the one hand, to the volitions of the divine mind 
and of other pure and holy beings, as for instance the glorified 
saints in heaven, — and as applied, on the other hand, to classes of 
men who have been subjected to most unfavourable moral influ- 
ences, and have now sunk into deep moral degradation, but are 
still admitted to be responsible, — without seeing that there are 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 479 



profound mysteries connected with this matter which cannot be 
settled, as many seem to suppose, merely by laying it down that 
liberty is liberty, and that necessity is necessity, and that the one 
absolutely and universally excludes the other. 

Liberty and necessity, manifestly, may be both predicated of 
the divine will, and of the will also of some classes of responsible 
creatures. If this be so, then we must have distinctions in the 
senses in which these words are applied, — precise specifications 
of the different senses in which they may be affirmed or denied 
respectively of differently constituted and of differently circum- 
stanced beings, all possessed of the capacity of moral agency. It is 
plain that liberty in some sense is not necessary to moral agency, 
and that necessity in some sense does not preclude it ; and if so, 
there must be some difficult and intricate points to be examined 
and disposed of before the question between liberty and necessity 
can be determined, if it is to be decided by an application of the 
only standard to which Sir William refers, viz. their bearing 
respectively upon the point of responsibility. We do not profess 
to discuss this subject, — we merely wish to point out the unreason- 
ableness of the way in which Sir William deals with it ; and to 
explain why it is that there is nothing in what he has said about 
it, that calls for or requires any investigation of the general subject 
on the part of those whose views he has condemned. 

There has always been a strong tendency, especially among 
the Libertarians, to attempt settling this controversy by dwelling 
upon inferences and practical consequences, supposed to flow from 
the opposite doctrines, instead of carefully examining the proper 
evidence directly applicable to the question of their truth and 
falsehood.* The question involved in this controversy is properly 
one of fact, and belongs to the province of psychology. It is a 
right and a safe rule for beings of our limited mental powers, 
and of our very inadequate capacity of tracing consequences, that 



* " The charge of fatalism and 
pantheism is sometimes met in the 
same style of argumentation, and the 
account is balanced by raising the 
cry of Pelagian and Arminian heresy. 
But it is quite as important, and in 
most cases far more easy, to deter- 
mine whether a proposed doctrine is 
true or false, than to settle the ques- 



tion whether it is most nearly allied 
to Fatalism or Arminianism, to Pan- 
theism or Pelagianism." (An Inquiry 
respecting the Self -determining Power 
of the Will, or contingent Volition, by 
Jeremiah Day, President of Yale Col- 
lege, p. 171.) This work contains a 
valuable defence of Edwards' yiews, 
published in 1838. 



480 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

we should make up our minds chiefly from an examination of 
the proper intrinsic evidence directly applicable to the subject 
under consideration, instead of attaching much weight to alleged 
inferences or consequences. The reasonableness of this general 
principle of procedure is peculiarly manifest when the consequence 
mainly founded upon is, that a particular doctrine overturns man's 
moral responsibility, and when this allegation is controverted by 
men of unquestionable ability and good character. When a body 
of men of this description assert, and undertake to prove, that the 
allegation that a doctrine held by them overturns man's moral 
responsibility, and leads to fatalism and atheism, is unfounded ; 
when they proclaim their belief in the existence and moral govern- 
ment of God, and their consciousness and recognition "of an 
uncompromising law of duty," and can appeal, in proof of the sin- 
cerity of this profession, to the general tenor of their own character 
and conduct ; when they can further appeal to classes and com- 
munities who have received this doctrine, and yet have equalled 
any other sections of men in obedience to the divine will and in 
the discharge of moral duty ; — when such a state of things as this 
is presented, the allegation of an atheistic and immoral tendency 
becomes a practical absurdity, which should be left to those who 
are incapable of arguing the question upon its own proper merits, 
and which, even when brought forward by those who are capable 
of higher things, is scarcely worthy of notice. Calvinists, or 
Necessitarians, against whose views this objection has been com- 
monly adduced, have perhaps wasted too much time and strength 
in elaborating a formal and direct answer to it. They might, we 
are disposed to think, have done more to establish them, by giving 
greater attention to the investigation of the materials by which 
the proper truth or falsehood of the contending theories — apart 
from their alleged tendencies and consequences — might be deter- 
mined. Locke spoke like a true philosopher when, in the context 
of the passage formerly quoted, he said, " If you will argue for or 
against liberty from consequences, I will not undertake to answer 
you." Sir William, on the contrary, has descended to a mode of 
representation which should really have been left to those who 
are unable to reason, and are capable only of lavishing abuse.* 



* We have much pleasure in sup- I here expressed of Sir William's mode 
porting the strong disapprobation | of procedure, by the authority of the 



Essay IX.] DOCTEINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 481 

Another curious peculiarity in Sir William's mode of dealing 
with this subject is, that his misrepresentation about moral re- 
sponsibility, fatalism, atheism, etc., is directed only against the 
doctrine of philosophical necessity ; while he gives us distinctly to 
understand, by the plainest implication, that no such objections 
can be substantiated against the doctrines of Calvinism. He is 
here professing to be a Calvinist, and to be defending genuine 
Calvinism against the misrepresentations of Dr Chalmers and 
others, who, while professing to believe in Calvinism, do not 
understand it so well as he, — who indeed corrupt the Calvinistic 
system by teaching the doctrine of philosophical necessity as a 
part of it. Sir William's heavy charges against these men are, of 
course, based not upon the Calvinism which he professes to hold 
in common with them, but upon the philosophical necessity which 
they taught as a part of their Calvinism, but in which he differs 
from them. In other words, he professes to believe, as every 
Calvinist does, that God hath foreordained whatsoever comes to 
pass, and he sees nothing in this doctrine that tends to over- 
throw moral responsibility and to bring in fatalism ; while these 
alarming consequences attach to the doctrine of philosophical 
necessity, — a doctrine which, as held by those whom he was 
denouncing, could be nothing else than an effectual provision made 
by God for bringing about the results which, in His "absolute 
decrees," He had predetermined to bring to pass. 

Upon the ground of considerations derived from these various 
sources, — viz. the general character and standing of this subject of 
liberty and necessity viewed historically as a topic of controversial 
discussion, the special views of Sir William Hamilton regarding 
it, and the very peculiar character of that passage of his which is 
more immediately under our consideration, — we do not consider 
ourselves called upon, and we do not intend, to enter upon the 
more general aspects of the great subject which is here brought 



following weighty and most apposite 
statement of Sir James Macintosh : — 
"There is no topic which requires such 
strong grounds to justify its admis- 
sion into controversy, as that of moral 
consequences ; for, besides its incurable 
tendency to inflame the angry passions, 
and to excite obloquy against indivi- 
duals, which renders it a practical 
restraint on free inquiry, the employ- 



ment of it in dispute seems to betray 
apprehensions derogatory from the 
dignity of morals, and not consonant 
either to the dictates of reason or to 
the lessons of experience. The rules 
of morality are too deeply rooted iu 
human nature to be shaken by 
every veering breath of metaphysical 
theory." — Edinburgh Review, vol. 
xxxvi. p. 255. 



VOL. I. 31 



482 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

under our notice. We do not intend to deal with Sir William's 
two principal positions, — viz. 1. That the doctrine of philosophical 
necessity is "in the face of the Bible ;" 2. That it overturns men's 
moral responsibility, and leads to fatalism and atheism. Sir Wil- 
liam has not given us any evidence or argument in support of these 
two positions. He has said nothing here upon the subject but 
what might just as well have been said by the most ignorant person 
that ever railed against Calvinism. We deny both these positions, 
though we do not mean to assert their contradictories. We do not 
believe that there is anything in the Bible that either proves or dis- 
proves the doctrine of philosophical necessity. We have never seen 
any satisfactory evidence that it tends to immorality and atheism. 

There is, however, another statement made by Sir William in 
the passage on which we are animadverting, which — though re- 
lating to a point of inferior intrinsic importance — is perhaps more 
likely to be believed by ordinary readers, and thereby to do mischief, 
while at the same time it involves a great personal injustice, — 
viz. that this doctrine is contrary to the teaching of Calvin, — is a 
corruption of pure Calvinism, — and more specifically, is " in the 
face of the Confession of Faith" of "our Calvinistic Church of 
Scotland." This was probably intended by Sir William to be the 
real gravamen of the charge against Dr Chalmers, that he had 
taught a doctrine opposed to, the symbolical books which he had 
subscribed. This is a serious charge, and a favourite one with Sir 
William. He repeated it somewhat more calmly, though still 
not without plain indications of unphilosophical vehemence, in 
a note to the sixth volume of the collected edition of Professor 
Dugald Stewart's works. This note, which is as follows, was 
published in 1855 : — 

" The Scottish Church asserts, with equal emphasis, the doctrine of the 
absolute decrees of God and the doctrine of the moral liberty of man. The 
theory of Jonathan Edwards touching the bondage of the will is, on the 
Calvinistic standard of the Westminster Confession, not only heterodox but 
heretical ; and yet we have seen the scheme of absolute necessity urged by 
imposing authority, and even apparently received with general aquiescence, 
as that exclusively conformable to the recognised tenets of our ecclesiastical 
establishment."* 

It is the more needful to advert to this charge, because the 
leading idea on which it is based has been countenanced also by 

* P. 402. 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 483 

Professor Stewart, in a passage published for the first time by Sir 
William himself in 1854 in his edition of the " Dissertation on the 
Progress of Philosophy," forming the first volume of the collected 
works. Stewart's statement upon the subject, which is written 
with the calmness of a philosopher, and conveys no personal 
attack, is inserted by Sir William as a passage "restored" from the 
author's manuscript in the note' M.M.,* and is as follows : — 

"In the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland (the articles of 
which are strictly Calvinistic), the freedom of the human will is asserted as 
strongly as the doctrine of the eternal decrees of God. ' God (it is said, chap, 
iii.) from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, 
freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass. Yet so as thereby 
neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the crea- 
tures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather 
established.' And still more explicitly in chap. ix. : 'God hath indued the will 
of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute 
necessity of nature determined, to do good or evil."' 

Stewart here plainly sanctions the general idea on which Sir 
William's charge against Edwards and Chalmers is founded, 
and quotes those portions of the Confession which he regards as 
establishing his position. Such a charge, brought forward in such 
circumstances, and resting upon grounds which may appear not 
altogether destitute of plausibility to ill-informed persons, demands 
consideration ; and this brings us back to what we really intended 
to have been the main subject of this discussion. We believe the 
charge to be utterly groundless; while at the same time we do not 
altogether approve of the aspects in which Edwards and Chalmers 
have represented this matter. Our views upon this point may be 
embodied in two plain propositions, and we do not mean to attempt 
more at present than briefly indicating the grounds on which 
we think they may be established. 1st, There is nothing in the 
Calvinistic system of theology, or in the Westminster Confession 
of Faith, which precludes men from holding the doctrine of philo- 
sophical necessity. 2d, There is nothing in the Calvinistic system 
of theology, or in the Westminster Confession, which requires 
men to hold the doctrine of philosophical necessity. By estab- 
lishing the first of these positions, we vindicate Edwards, Chalmers, 
and other pious and distinguished theologians, from the charge 
which Sir William has adduced against them of corrupting Cal- 

*P. 575. 



484 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

vinism, and contradicting the Westminster Confession. By estab- 
lishing the second, we vindicate Calvinism from the servitude 
which the views of Edwards and Chalmers seem to impose upon 
it, of being obliged to undertake the defence of a doctrine which, 
whether true or false, belongs, after all, to the department of 
philosophy rather than of theology, and ought to be left to be dis- 
posed of upon its own proper philosophical grounds. 

First, then, we say that there is nothing in the Calvinistic 
system of theology, or in the Westminster Confession, which pre- 
cludes men from holding the doctrine of philosophical necessity. 
We have hitherto spoken of this doctrine chiefly incidentally, 
assuming that its general nature and import are well known ; but 
it may be proper now to state more formally what is meant by it. 
The advocates of this doctrine maintain that there is an invariable 
and necessary connection between men's motives and their voli- 
tions, — between objects of desire and pursuit as seen and appre- 
hended by them, and all their acts of volition or choice ; or that 
our volitions and choices are invariably determined by the last 
practical judgment of the understanding. Libertarians admit 
that men's volitions or choices are, ordinarily and in general, de- 
termined by motives as seen and apprehended by the mind ; but 
deny that there is a law regulating our mental processes, by which 
this determination of volitions by motives is rendered invariable 
and necessary. On the contrary, they maintain, in opposition to 
this, and as the only alternative, that the will has a liberty of 
indifference, whereby, irrespective or in disregard of any motives 
that may be presented to it, it may remain in equilibrio; that it may 
determine or put forth a volition or choice, either in accordance 
with or in opposition to the motives presented to it, and that it 
can do this in the exercise of an inherent self -determining power 
of its own. The invariable and necessary influence of motives in 
determining volitions, and a liberty of indifference, combined with 
a self-determining power in the will itself, are thus the opposite 
positions of the contending parties on this question. The dispute 
manifestly turns wholly upon a question as to what is the law 
which regulates those mental processes that result in, or consti- 
tute, volitions or choices; and this is properly and primarily a 
question in philosophy, the materials for determining which must 
be sought in an appeal to consciousness, and in an application of 
the data which consciousness furnishes. This statement of the 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 485 

real nature of the point in dispute is surely fitted to suggest at 
once the improbability of the necessitarian view telling so power- 
fully upon great theological questions, and leading to such fearful 
consequences as Sir William Hamilton alleges. 

We have to show that men who have embraced the Calvinistic 
system of theology, and subscribed the Westminster Confession, 
are not thereby precluded from maintaining this view of the law 
which regulates our volitions, commonly and justly described as 
the doctrine of philosophical necessity. It may be proper, in the 
first place, to advert to the authority of Augustine and Calvin, 
unquestionably the two highest names in theology. Professor 
Stewart, in the passage which immediately precedes that quoted 
above, and which is to be found in the former edition of the Dis- 
sertation, as prefixed to the " Encyclopaedia Britannica," # says 
that " Augustine has asserted the liberty of the will in terms as 
explicit as those in which he has announced the theological dogmas 
with which it is most difficult to reconcile it, — nay, he has gone 
so far as to acknowledge the essential importance of this belief as 
a motive to virtuous conduct ;" and then he gives a quotation from 
Augustine in support of this statement. Sir William has asserted 
that " nothing can be conceived more contrary to the doctrine of 
that great divine (Calvin), than what has latterly been promul- 
gated as Calvinism in our Calvinistic Church of Scotland," — 
meaning, as is manifest, the doctrine of philosophical necessity. 
He has given no quotations or references in support of this 
position, though he would have had no difficulty in producing 
extracts which, to those who had never read Calvin, would have 
appeared to establish it. But the true views of Augustine and 
Calvin upon this subject are not to be learnt from a few isolated 
passages. They can be correctly understood only upon a deli- 
berate and comprehensive survey of their whole position. If it 
be true, as Stewart alleges, that Augustine has expressly asserted 
the liberty of the will, it is at least as true that he has often 
explicitly denied it. He asserts it in some senses and denies it in 
others ; and he has not always taken due care to explain fully 
the sense in which he was employing the phrase for the time, 
and to adhere to this sense throughout. And accordingly, in the 
great controversy between the Jansenists and the Jesuits as to 



* 7th Edition, p. 267. 



486 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

what Augustine's theological doctrines were, there is no point 
in regard to which the Jesuits have been able to make out 
nearly so plausible a case as in support of Stewart's position, 
that Augustine asserted the liberty of the will. On this, how- 
ever, as on every other point, the Jansenists gained the victory, 
though not quite so decisively as upon the other departments of 
the controversy. It has been proved that Augustine held, and 
held as great scriptural doctrines, that man before the fall had 
liberty or freedom of will, — in this sense, that he was able to will 
and to do good as well as to will and to do evil ; that he entirely 
lost this liberty of will by the fall ; that fallen man in his unre- 
newed state has not liberty of will, or has it only in this sense, 
that he is still fully responsible for what he does as being a free 
moral agent, acting voluntarily or spontaneously ; and that when 
men's wills have been renewed by God's grace, and they are re- 
stored again to liberty of will, — in this sense, that they are now 
again able to will and to do good as well as evil, — it is still true 
that God requires of them what they are not able to perform. It 
can be proved that Augustine held all these views in regard to 
the liberty of the will ; while it cannot be proved that he has given 
any deliverance whatever upon the only point involved in the 
controversy about philosophical necessity. All this, which can be 
proved in regard to Augustine, is equally true of Calvin ; the main 
difference between the two cases being this, that Calvin has more 
fully and carefully than Augustine, explained the different senses 
in which the will might be said to be free and not free, — that he 
has adhered more closely in treating of this subject to precise and 
definite phraseology, carefully explained and consistently applied, 
— and that he has never spoken of free-will without affording, to 
careful readers, abundant materials for understanding in what 
sense he employed it, and especially for satisfying themselves that 
he did not hold liberty in any sense inconsistent with necessity, 
as understood in the present controversy. 

In Calvin's most important and masterly treatise, " De Ser- 
vitute et Liberatione Humani Arbitrii," he has fully brought out 
his views upon this subject, and has furnished ample materials for 
establishing all we have said concerning him. A considerable 
portion of this treatise is occupied with an elaborate investigation 
as to what were Augustine's views upon this point, and a con- 
clusive proof, in opposition to his Popish antagonist Pighius, that 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 487 

Augustine, with occasional looseness and inaccuracy of expression, 
held the same views in substance which he and his fellow-re- 
formers had promulgated. We may briefly advert to one or two 
points, indicating plainly enough the leading features of the views 
of Augustine and Calvin upon this matter. There is one very 
striking and pithy saying of Augustine's, in speaking of the fall, 
which Calvin repeatedly quotes with approbation, viz., " Homo 
libero arbitrio male usus et se perdidit et ipsum," — man, by mak- 
ing a bad use of his free-will, lost both himself and it, — a state- 
ment which throws a flood of light upon the whole system of 
doctrine which these great men taught upon this subject. An- 
other statement of Augustine's, which Calvin repeatedly quotes 
with approbation, and which was applied by them both to re- 
newed and unrenewed men, is, " Jubet Deus quae non possumus 
ut noverimus quid ab ipso petere debeamus," — God requires of us 
what we cannot perform, in order that we may know what we 
ought to ask from Him. We give only one other brief extract 
from the treatise above referred to. "I have always declared 
that I have no wish to fight about the name (of free-will), if it 
were once settled that liberty ought to be referred not to the 
power or capacity of choosing equally good or evil, but to spon- 
taneous motion and consent. And what else mean the words of 
Augustine ? He says, ( The will is free, but only to evil. Why % 
because it is moved by delight and its proper appetite.' He adds 
afterwards, l But this will which is free for evil, because it is 
delighted with evil, is not free for good, because it has not been 
emancipated.' To which Calvin subjoins, c All this is so accordcint 
with my doctrine, that you might suppose it had been written for 
the defence of it.'* Luther and his followers, who had at first 
made some very absolute and exaggerated statements in the way 
of denying free-will altogether, came afterwards to attach much 
importance to a distinction between man's freedom in things 
external, civil, and moral, and his freedom in things properly 
spiritual ; and they embodied this distinction in the Confession of 
Augsburg.f Calvin admitted the truth and reality of this dis- 
tinction, though he did not regard it as of much importance in a 



* Calvini Opera, torn. ix. p. 141 ; 
Amstel, 1667. He touches upon the 
same topic also in the Institutes, B. 



ii. C. ii. s. 8 and 9, and c. iii. s. 13 
and 14. 

f Art. xviii. 



488 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

theological point of view. But while admitting that man has a 
power or freedom in things outward and merely moral which he 
has not in things spiritual, he has given no indication that he 
thought that even, in regard to the former class of subjects, man 
has a liberty of indifference, or his will a self-determining power. 
In the second chapter of the second book of the Institutes, he has 
given a very striking and eloquent description of what man can 
effect by the exercise of his powers as brought to bear upon out- 
ward and natural things, and upon arts, literature, and philosophy, 
as compared with the blindness and uselessness of the unaided 
understanding in religious matters. But neither here has he said 
anything which implies that he denied the doctrine of philo- 
sophical necessity, or ascribed to the will of man any liberty or 
capacity inconsistent with it." 

In short, neither Augustine nor Calvin entertained or dis- 
cussed the psychological question as to what the laws are which 
regulate men's mental processes, and determine their volitions. 
The liberty and necessity of which they treated, and which in 
different sentences they affirmed and denied, referred to some- 
thing very different from, and much more important than, this. 
From their denials of liberty and free-will, we would not be 
warranted in asserting that they held the doctrine of philosophical 
necessity ; and neither, on the other hand, is any one entitled 
to infer, from their assertions of liberty and free-will, that they 
denied that doctrine. And this, indeed, is really the substance of 
what is true and can be established, not only of Augustine and 
Calvin, who have been honoured more than any other uninspired 
men to bring out correctly the scheme of divine truth, but of 
Calvinistic divines in general, and among the rest, of the authors 
of the Westminster Confession. 

Professor Stewart evidently knew very little about this matter 
in its theological aspects. But he writes modestly and cautiously. 
The only statement he makes about Augustine is literally true, 
though it is not the whole truth, and is certainly, in the sense in 
which alone it can be established, quite irrelevant to the object he 
had in view. That " nothing can be conceived more contrary to 
the doctrine of" Calvin than the doctrine of philosophical neces- 
sity, as taught by Edwards and Chalmers, — and this is what Sir 
William Hamilton must have intended to assert, — is a position for 
which no evidence has been or can be produced; and it is scarcely 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 489 

possible that he could be ignorant that he had no materials what- 
ever for establishing it. 

We proceed now to the more important and pressing part of 
the case, that which professes to deal with the teaching of the 
Westminster Confession. Upon this point Stewart asserts, in 
almost the very same terms which he had employed in speaking 
of Augustine, that " in the Confession the freedom of the human 
will is asserted as strongly as the doctrine of the eternal decrees 
of God;" and quotes two passages, the one from the third and 
the other from the ninth chapter, in support of this position. He 
evidently meant to assert that the Confession, though teaching 
strict Calvinism on the subject of foreordination, taught also the 
Libertarian view on the subject of the will, as opposed to the doc- 
trine of philosophical necessity. But both his general statement 
and his proofs derived from the Confession, manifestly labour 
under all the difficulties and drawbacks connected with the ambi- 
guity of the phrase, " the freedom of the human will," which is 
the subject of his proposition. The " freedom of the will" may 
be understood in a variety of senses, and on both sides of the con- 
troversy would be either affirmed or denied, according as it might 
be explained. It is plain enough from the context in what sense 
Stewart understood it, and meant it to be understood ; but still 
the vagueness and ambiguity of the expression in itself gives the 
appearance of greater weight to his proofs than they possess. Sir 
William has not defined what the doctrine is against which he 
declaimed so vehemently in his "Discussions;" but it is quite 
plain that what he had in view was, and could be nothing else than, 
the doctrine of philosophical necessity as held by Dr Chalmers ; and 
this he pronounced to be " in the face of the Confession as in the 
face of the Bible." In his more recent note in the sixth volume 
of Stewart, he brings it out somewhat more definitely as " the 
theory of Jonathan Edwards touching the bondage of the will;" 
and this he pronounces to be, " on the Calvinistic standard of the 
Westminster Confession, not only heterodox, but heretical." It 
looks like an unfair attempt to. excite prejudice, that in the next 
clause, in which he repeats his attack upon Dr Chalmers, he should 
speak of it as " the scheme of absolute necessity, urged by imposing 
authority." But not to dwell upon this, — especially as it is noto- 
rious that Dr Chalmers' views upon this subject were avowedly 
identical with those of Edwards, — we are fully warranted in laying 



490 



CALVINISM AND THE 



[Essay IX. 



it down, that Sir William has asserted, that the doctrine of philo- 
sophical necessity, as taught by Edwards and Chalmers, is " in the 
face of the Confession," — " is, on the Calvinistic standard of the 
Westminster Confession, not only heterodox, but heretical." This 
is a definite statement. It involves a serious charge. Is it true ? 

There is surely a considerable antecedent improbability that 
the views of Edwards and Chalmers should be opposed in an 
important point to the Confession, and that Sir William Hamilton 
should have been the first and only person to discover and pro- 
claim this. Dr Chalmers had repeatedly professed his public 
adherence to the Confession as the confession of his faith. He, of 
course, believed that he believed it, and that his teaching was in 
full accordance with its statements. The ministers of the church 
to which he belonged — who had all themselves subscribed the 
Confession — found nothing in his teaching opposed to it The 
question was once put formally and explicitly by Dr Erskine to 
Edwards, whether he could subscribe the Westminster Confession, 
and he in reply declared his readiness to do so.* But still it is 
not impossible that these men may have been wholly wrong in 
this matter, and that Sir William may have been right. In 
publicly adducing so serious a charge, he ought in fairness to 
have distinctly specified the grounds on which it rested. He has 
not done so. But the passages quoted by Stewart are manifestly 
those on which the charge must rest ; although something might 
also be made of a passage in the fifth chapter upon Providence, 
and of the statements which assert or imply, that our first parents 
were left to the freedom of their own will, and enjoyed before 
the fall a liberty of will which we do not possess. 

The first passage is taken from the third chapter ; it is as fol- 



* We subjoin the passage, though 
well known, because it is curious and 
interesting : — " You are pleased, dear 
sir, very kindly to ask me, whether I 
could sign the Westminster Confession 
of Faith, and submit to the Presbyte- 
rian form of church government ; and 
to offer to use your influence to pro- 
cure a call for me to some congrega- 
tion in Scotland. I should be very 
ungrateful if I were not thankful for 
such kindness and friendship. As to 
my subscribing to the substance of 
the Westminster Confession, there 
would be no difficulty ; and as to 



the Presbyterian government, I have 
long been perfectly out of conceit of 
our unsettled, independent, confused 
way of church government in this 
land, and the Presbyterian way has 
ever appeared to me most agreeable 
to the word of God, and the reason 
and nature of things ; though I cannot 
say that I think that the Presbyterian 
government of the Church of Scotland 
is so perfect, that it cannot in some 
respects be mended." (P. 163, Me- 
moir of Edwards, prefixed to the 
London edition of his works in two 
large volumes, 1840.) 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 491 

lows : — u God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy 
counsel of lECis own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatso- 
ever comes to pass ; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of 
sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the 
liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather 
established." 

Every one must see, and no Calvinist has ever disputed, that 
if it be indeed true that God has unchangeably foreordained 
whatsoever comes to pass, this certainly implies that liberty, in 
some sense, as predicated even of men's volitions and actions, is 
excluded ; and that necessity, in some sense, is established. This 
being tacitly conceded as undeniable, the latter part of the above 
section of the Confession is directed to the general object of dis- 
claiming or shutting out certain extreme views as to the inferences 
which some might deduce from this great doctrine of universal 
foreordination. All that is here expressly asserted is, that the 
three things here specified do not follow from foreordination. 
But we admit that the passage may be held in fairness to imply 
that the things here specified not only do not follow from pre- 
destination, but are in themselves bad, or false, or impossible. 
The latter part then of the passage may be paraphrased thus : — 
" It may be thought that this doctrine of foreordination makes 
God the author of sin ; but however plausible this allegation may 
be, we do not admit its truth : we deny that God is the author of 
sin, and we deny that it is a just inference from foreordination 
that He is so. It may further be alleged plausibly, that by this 
universal and unchangeable foreordination, violence is offered to 
the will of the creatures, and that the liberty or contingency of 
second causes is taken away; but w T e deny that violence is or 
should be offered to the will of the creatures, or that the liberty 
or contingency of second causes is taken away by foreordination 
or by anything else; and, on the contrary, we hold that the 
liberty or contingency of second causes is rather established by 
it." Now there is here no mention of, or reference to, the doc- 
trine of philosophical necessity. The only doctrine mentioned 
here is that of foreordination ; and in addition to stating it and 
asserting its truth, the substance of what is said about it is, that 
while it may suggest plausible, it furnishes no solid, grounds for 
the inference, either that God is the author of sin, or that violence 
is offered to the will of the creatures. The only way therefore 



492 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

in which this section of the Confession can bear upon the proof 
that the doctrine of philosophical necessity is heretical is this, — 
this proves that it is wrong that violence be offered to the will of 
the creatures ; the doctrine of philosophical necessity offers violence, 
etc., and therefore it is here condemned. But the Confession 
furnishes no materials that bear, or even seem to bear, upon the 
proof of the minor proposition about the nature, tendencies, and 
result of the doctrine of philosophical necessity. This proposition 
is not more self-evident — nay, it is not even more plausible — than 
the one that by f oreordination violence is offered to the will of the 
creatures. It is not to be assumed as true. It must be proved 
by distinct and independent materials, for nothing of this sort is 
to be found in the Confession. Edwards and Chalmers have no 
hesitation in applying to their doctrine of necessity what the 
Confession applies to f oreordination — viz. that thereby neither is 
God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the 
creatures. And there is certainly nothing in the Confession that 
can be pleaded either to the effect of precluding them from taking 
this ground, or of throwing any difficulty in the way of their 
maintaining it. Indeed, the only correct sense of what is meant 
by " offering violence to the will of the creatures" is not, com- 
pelling them to will in a certain w r ay, for that is impossible and 
inconsistent with the nature of will as will, but compelling them 
to do what their will abhors. We will present the view generally 
taken upon this point by Calvinists in the words of John Knox, 
in his masterly treatise on predestination, which having been 
republished in the fifth volume of Mr Laing's admirable edition 
of his collected works, will soon, we hope, become better known 
amongst us than it has hitherto been. " I affirm that God worketh 
all in all things according to the purpose of the same His good 
will, and yet that He useth no violence, neither in compelling His 
creatures, neither constraining their wills by any external force, 
neither yet taking their wills from them, but in all wisdom and 
justice using them as He knoweth most expedient for the mani- 
festation of His glory ; without any violence, I say, done to their 
wills, for violence is done to the will of a creature when it willeth 
one tiling, and yet by force, by tyranny, or by a greater 'power, it is 
compelled to do the things which it would notr # 



Pp. 143, 144. 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 493 

This is the proper meaning of the words, this is the recognised 
sense of the statement, among Calvinistic writers ; and therefore 
the portion of the Confession founded on by Stewart, not only 
contains nothing in the least adverse to the doctrine of philoso- 
phical necessity, but nothing that has even the appearance of 
being so. For even the opponents of this doctrine will scarcely 
allege, that it implies that violence is offered to the will of the 
creatures, in the sense in which that has now been explained. In 
order to warrant such an allegation, it would be requisite that 
there should be a denial of the liberty of spontaneity, or the power 
of doing freely and spontaneously what we will or choose to do. 
And not only have all the supporters of philosophical necessity 
uniformly ascribed to men a liberty of spontaneity ; but the op- 
ponents of that doctrine have admitted that this liberty of spon- 
taneity is perfectly consistent with it, while they hold it to be 
insufficient as the basis of moral responsibility. 

Mr Stewart seems to indicate, by his italics, that he regarded 
the clause on which we have been commenting, about " violence 
offered to the will of the creatures," as embodying the strength of 
his case. But if he had been familiar with the way in which 
these topics have been discussed among theologians, he would 
probably have been of opinion that the third point referred to, 
viz. " the liberty or contingency of second causes," furnished an 
argument quite as plausible, especially when viewed in connection 
with the fuller statement upon the same subject, contained in the 
fifth chapter on Providence, sec. 2 : " Although, in relation to 
the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things 
come to pass, immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same provi- 
dence, He ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of 
second causes, necessarily, freely, or contingently." The third 
chapter states the substance of what Scripture teaches concerning 
God's decrees, — that is, His purposes or determinations formed 
from eternity as to all that was to come to pass in time. This 
fifth chapter gives the substance of Scripture teaching as to God's 
providence, — that is, as to all that He does in time for carrying 
into effect the purposes which He had formed from eternity. 
God having foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, provision is 
made for securing all the results so ordained and determined. 
And all who hold the Calvinistic doctrine on the subject of fore- 
ordination must, in consistency, also receive the common Calvin- 



1 



494 CALVINISM AMD THE [Essay IX. 

istic doctrine on the subject of providence, or the government 
which -God is ever exercising over all His creatures and all their 
actions ^ Against the doctrine of foreordination, men are very 
prone to adduce the objections, — that it makes God the author 
of sin, that it offers violence to the will of the creatures, 
and that it takes away the liberty or contingency of second 
causes. These objections seem to apply with equal plausibility 
to the doctrine of providence as to that of predestination ; and 
Calvinists deal with these objections, in both cases, in the same 
way, by admitting that these consequences would be fatal to Cal- 
vinistic doctrines if it could be conclusively proved that they were 
necessary consequences, and by asserting and undertaking to 
prove that these consequences do not necessarily follow from their 
doctrines, or at least that this cannot be established. We have 
nothing to do at present with the allegation that the Calvinistic 
doctrines of predestination and providence make God the author 
of sin. We have already explained the meaning and bearing of 
the allegation about violence being offered to the will of the crea- 
tures ; and proved that it is utterly inadequate for the purpose for 
which Stewart adduced it, — that it has no bearing whatever upon 
the question whether Edwards' doctrine of philosophical necessity 
is or is not opposed to the Confession. In regard to the third 
point, we have nothing to do directly with the contingency, but 
only with the liberty, of second causes. What is said about this, 
and how does it bear, if at all, upon the question under considera- 
tion 1 God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and He 
has made provision for securing that everything which He had 
before ordained should be actually brought about. This might 
appear, and has indeed been alleged, to involve or require the 
establishment of an absolute, universal, and indiscriminate neces- 
sity or fatalism, as comprehending and controlling, equally and 
alike, all agents and events. But Calvinists deny that this follows 
from their doctrines. These doctrines no doubt imply that, in 
relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God the first cause, 
all things do come to pass immutably and infallibly, and thus 
they certainly establish necessity and exclude liberty in some 
sense ; yet they do not take away the liberty of second causes, 
and they leave it open to God to cause all things to come about 
according to the nature of these second causes, necessarily, freely, 
or contingently. In other words, Calvinists maintain that God, 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 495 

in executing His decrees in providence, brings about different 
classes of events in a way that is in full accordance with their 
own distinct, proper natures, — bringing to pass necessary things 
necessarily, free things freely, and contingent things contingently. 
This of course implies that there are under God's government 
free agents, who are dealt with in all respects as free agents, 
according to their proper nature, and the actual qualities and 
capacities they possess. As free agents they act freely ; and 
although, if the doctrine of the foreordination of all things be 
true, there is a necessity in some sense attaching to all their 
actions, this does not preclude their having also a liberty attach- 
ing to them, in accordance with their general character and 
standing, as being free, in contradiction from necessary, agents. 
Among these free agents — in whom the liberty of second causes 
is maintained and preserved, notwithstanding the control which 
God exercises over all their actions in order to execute His decrees 
— are of course men, rational and responsible beings. God has 
made them rational and responsible, and He has endowed them 
with at least such freedom or liberty as is necessary to responsi- 
bility. He ever deals with them in accordance with the qualities 
and capacities which He has bestowed upon them. He does not 
deal with them as He does with the material creation or with the 
irrational animals. Although ever infallibly executing His de- 
crees, He leaves them in the full possession of the rationality, 
responsibility, and liberty which He has bestowed upon them. 

No one acquainted with the ground taken in discussions upon 
this subject by the Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century, 
can have any doubt that this is the meaning of the statement 
under consideration, and that this was all that these words were 
intended to express ; and if so, then it is manifest that they just 
throw us back upon the question, to be decided upon its own 
proper grounds, as to the nature, species, and foundations of the 
liberty which men actually possess, while they afford us no mate- 
rials whatever, direct or indirect, for determining the question, 
whether or not this liberty is to be held as precluding the doctrine 
of philosophical necessity. Edwards and Chalmers of course held 
that men are free agents, — that they are in some sense possessed 
of a free-will, which neither the predestination nor the provi- 
dence of God annihilates or supersedes ; and if so, they could 
have no difficulty in subscribing these portions of the Confession. 



496 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

But perhaps the portion of the Confession which has most the 
appearance of something like hostility to the doctrine of philoso- 
phical necessity, is that which Stewart quotes from the beginning 
of the ninth chapter, which treats of " free-will." The statement 
is this : " God hath endued the will of man with that natural 
liberty, that it is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of 
nature determined to good or evil." ' This is plainly intended as a 
general description of the human will, or rather of some leading 
features of it, applicable to the will at all times, and amid all the 
changes which in some respects it has undergone. There is, it is 
here asserted, a certain natural liberty with which God has endued 
the will of man, and which it ever retains, and must retain, as 
essential to its proper nature. But it must be observed that this 
is not a full definition or description of the will as a power or 
faculty of man, such as might be expected in a philosophical 
treatise giving an account of the human mind. The Confession 
professes to give a summary of what is taught in Scripture, and 
no one has ever imagined that Scripture contains materials for en- 
abling us to give a full description of the will as a faculty of man, 
and to determine, directly and at once, between the two opposite 
theories of liberty and necessity. The Scripture affords materials 
for determining questions about the will only in some of its theo- 
logical bearings. And accordingly it must be noticed that the 
Confession does not here speak generally of its being determined, 
but only of its being determined to good or evil. These words, 
" to good or evil," are a constituent part of the only affirmation 
here put forth. It is not a statement about the grounds and 
causes of the ordinary determinations of the will, or of volitions 
in general, but about determinations to good or evil, — that is, about 
volitions which involve a choosing between good and evil, or a 
preference of the one of these to the other. The general object of 
the whole chapter was to unfold the different aspects which man 
has presented in his fourfold state, as to freedom or liberty of will 
in choosing between good and evil. To the freedom or bondage of 
man's will, with reference to choosing between good and evil, as 
possessed and exhibited in four different conditions, the four fol- 
lowing sections of the chapter are devoted ; and the first section 
was evidently intended to be introductory to the exposition of this 
general topic in its different stages. So that, viewed in its con- 
nection with what it introduces, it may be fairly regarded as 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 497 

amounting, in substance, to a statement to this effect, — that though 
man at different stages of his history — unfallen, fallen, renewed, 
glorified — has had his will determined to good and also determined 
to evil, this result is not to be ascribed in either case to force, or 
to any absolute necessity of nature, as that would be inconsistent 
with the natural liberty with which God has endowed the will. 
This w r as the aspect in which, principally, — we might almost say 
exclusively, — both the Reformers of the sixteenth, and the great 
Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth, century contemplated the 
subject of free-will; and it is in this sense alone, we are convinced, 
that the compilers of the Westminster Confession intended to 
expound it. 

But though we are satisfied of the sufficiency of the grounds 
on which this limitation of the import of the statement can be de- 
fended, — a limitation which of itself deprives it of all legitimate 
bearing upon the question of philosophical necessity, — we do not 
concede that our argument is dependent upon the establishment 
of this. Even if the statement be held to apply to the determina- 
tions of the will in general, instead of being limited to determina- 
tions which make a choice either of good or evil, — according to the 
moral character of the prevailing tendency of man s nature for the 
time, — still the language here employed is quite sufficient to remove 
from the minds of necessitarians all hesitation about accepting 
it. No necessitarian has any hesitation about repudiating force, 
or an absolute necessity of nature, as regulating the determina- 
tions of the will ; and though libertarians may allege that the doc- 
trine of philosophical necessity implies that the will is determined 
by force or by an absolute necessity of nature, yet they cannot 
establish this ; while .necessitarians openly and explicitly deny it, 
and cannot be convicted of any error or inconsistency in doing so. 
Nothing stands out more palpably on the face of the whole dis- 
cussions which have taken place upon this subject, than these two 
facts : 1st, That Calvinistic necessitarians have always admitted 
that determination by force — or as they usually called it, by con- 
straint, or coaction, or compulsion — is inconsistent with free 
agency and moral responsibility ; and 2d, That they have always 
contended, that there is nothing about the necessitarian view that 
gives any countenance to the idea that the will is determined by 
force. They have always contended that liberty or freedom — as 
opposed to all force or coaction — is indispensable, and must ever 

VOL. I. 32 



498 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

be maintained on all sides. Indeed, the controversy between 
libertarians and necessitarians has often been made to turn upon 
this precise question, whether a liberty of spontaneity, as opposed 
to all force or coaction, all constraint brought to bear from with- 
out, — a liberty this which all necessitarians hold and which liber- 
tarians generally admit that they can hold consistently, — be or be 
not sufficient for moral responsibility. Calvin says ■* " If liberty 
is opposed to coaction (or force), I confess and constantly assert 
that the will is free, and I reckon him a heretic who thinks other- 
wise. If it is called free in this sense, because it is not forced or 
violently drawn by an external movement, but is led on sua spoute, 
I have no objection to this. But because men in general, when 
they hear this epithet applied to the will of man, understand it in 
a very different sense, for this reason I dislike it." Edwards him- 
self says, speaking of the Stoics, whose Fate had been objected to 
him as identical with his necessity : " Whatever their doctrine 
was, if any of them held such a fate as is repugnant to any liberty 
consisting. in our doing as we please" (the liberty of spontaneity 
as opposed to all force or coaction from any external cause), " I 
utterly deny such a fate. If they held any such fate as is not 
consistent with the common and universal notions that mankind 
have of liberty, activity, moral agency, virtue and vice, I disclaim 
any such thing, and think I have demonstrated that the scheme I 
maintain is no such scheme." f Turretine lays down six different 
senses in which liberty and necessity may be affirmed or denied 
respectively of man or his will ; and — what is a curious, and with 
reference to our present argument an important, coincidence — 
he selects from the six the two species of necessity specified and 
repudiated in the Confession, — viz. that arising from force, and 
that arising from necessity of nature, or physical necessity, — and 
admits that these are contrary to the nature of the will and to 
moral responsibility, and are therefore to be rejected; while at the 
same time he strenuously advocates other kinds of necessity, and 
among the rest, that based upon the last judgment of the practical 
intellect, which is just the same thing as the doctrine of philoso- 
phical necessity as taught by Edwards and Chalmers. 

This fact is really conclusive upon the question we are now 
considering, a question which just amounts in substance to this, — 



* De Libero Arbitrio, p. 215. f P& r t iv. sec. vi. 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 499 

Does a denial of the determination of the will by force or by an 
absolute necessity of nature — understood in accordance with the views 
mid language of the Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century — 
involve or imply a denial of the doctrine of philosophical necessity ? 
That the repudiation of determination by force does not imply 
this, has already been proved, and is, indeed, perfectly manifest. 
There is more doubt as to what is meant by necessity of nature, 
and as to what this might suggest about the point in dispute. A 
" necessity of nature," and still more an " absolute necessity of 
nature," — the phrase used in the Confession, — seems to describe 
something much more intrinsic and fundamental, bearing more 
upon the essential qualities or constituent elements of will as will, 
— as a power or faculty essentially distinguishing those who have 
it from those who have it not, — than anything involved in the 
controversy about philosophical necessity, which merely respects 
one of the laws that regulate the determination of the volitions. 
And accordingly, on investigating the usus loquendi upon this 
point of the Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century, — which 
must be the standard for the interpretation of the Westminster 
Confession, — we find that by necessity of nature, as applied to this 
matter of the will, they meant a necessity arising from, or con- 
nected with, those essential qualities of the will, in virtue of which 
it becomes one of the main things that distinguish men from mere 
material objects, and from the irrational animals. It is the nature 
of the will of man, that it implies the possession and exercise of a 
rational, deliberate, unconstrained, spontaneous choice. Without 
this, will would be no will ; and without will, in this sense, man 
would not be a responsible being, and would sink to the level of 
mere matter, or of the beasts that perish. Calvin distinctly ad- 
mitted that " a liberty or freedom from necessity, in the sense of 
coaction or compulsion, did so inhere in man by nature that it 
could not in any way be taken away from him." This point of 
the natural liberty with which God has endowed the will of man, 
is thus explained by Turretine, with his usual masterly ability : — 

" Cum ergo ratio formalis libertatis non posita sit in in differentia, non 
potest alibi quseri, quam in hibentia rationali ; per quam homo facit quod lubet 
nrxvio rationis judicio : Ut hie necessario duo conjungenda veniant ad earn 
constituendam. 1. to Trpoxipsrocov, ut quod fit, non fiat cseco impetu, et bruto 
quodam instinctu sed Ik Trpoxipsamg, et prsevio rationis lumine, et intellectus 
practici judicio. 2. ro tzovatov, ut quod fit sponte et libenter fiat et sine coactione. 



500 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

" Hanc autem esse rationem formalem liberi arbitrii, ex eo non obscure 
colligitur, quod omni, soli, et semper conveniat. Ita ut nullum sit agens 
liberum, vel creatum, vel increatum, in quo duo isti characteres non deprehen- 
dantur : nee ad tempus tantiim, sed semper, ut posita lubentia ista rationali 
ponatur libertas, et sublata tollatur. Unde sequitur adjunctum esse insepara- 
bile agentis rationalis, quod illud in quovis statu comitatur, ut non possit esse 
rationale, quin eo ipso sit liberum, nee spoliari queat libertate, quin privetur 
etiam ratione. Quod evincit etiam liberum arbitrium absolute spectatum et 
in genere Entis nunquam ab homine tolli posse in quocunque versetur statu."* 

And then with regard to the different kinds of liberty and 
necessity that are or are not consistent with these views of the 
nature of the will, he selects, as we have mentioned, just the two 
specified in the Confession, as excluded absolutely and universally 
by right views of the essential qualities of the will, — viz. force and 
necessity of nature, or physical necessity. Force, or coaction, or 
compulsion, by an external power or pressure, needs no explana- 
tion ; and the other — the necessity of nature, or physical necessity, 
in conjunction with force, just as it is put in the Confession — 
Turretine explains in this way: — 

" Ut duo sunt praecipui characteres Liberi Arbitrii, in quibus ejus ratio 
formalis consistit, 1. y 7rpociiptGig, ut quod fit, praevio rationis judicio fiat, 
2. to sKovtriou, ut quod fit, sponte et sine coactione fiat: prior ad intellectum, 
posterior ad voluntatem pertinet : Duae etiam necessitatis species cum ea pug- 
nant. Prima est necessitas physica et bruta, Altera necessitas coactionis ; ilia 
Kpootipso-u/ tollit, ista verb skqvgcou. Nam quae fiunt ex necessitate physica ab 
agentibus naturalibus, ad unum natura et sine ratione determinatis, non pos- 
sunt censeri fieri libere, id est praevio rationis lumine ; et quae fiunt per vim 
et coacte, non possunt dici sponte fieri. Et de Ms nulla inter Nos et Adversaries 
est controversia. Hoc tantum obiter monendum Bellarminumf et alios ex Pon- 
tificiis Nostros calumniari, dum illis imponunt, quod sentiant libertatem a co- 
actione sufficere ad constitutionem liberi arbitrii ; Quia prseter illam requirunt 
etiam immunitatem a necessitate physica ; Et si quando dicunt hominem a 
coactione, non a necessitate liberum esse ; necessitatis voce non intelligunt earn 
quae dicitur physica, de qua nulla erat controversia, et quae satis per se exclu- 
ditur, turn conditione subjecti, quod est rationale, turn ex actibus judicandi et 
volendi, qui cum ea sunt davarurot ; sed necessitatem dependentiae, servitutis, 
et rationalem. 

" Sed si duae istae necessitatis species, a nobis commemoratae, cum libero 
arbitrio pugnant ; non eadem est ratio aliarum, quae cum eo subsistere possunt, 
et quibus non tarn destruitur, quam conservatur et perficitur, quod sigillatim 
quoad quatuor necessitatis species ante notatas ostendi potest." % 

* Loc. x. Qu. iii. s. 10 and 11. % Qu. ii. s. 5 and 6. 

f Lib. 3 De Gratia et Lib. Arbit. c. 4. 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 501 

And one of these four species of necessity, which are not incon- 
sistent with the natural liberty of the will, or with moral agency, 
is that which forms the subject of our present discussion ; in 
explaining which Turretine says that the nature of the will is such, 
" ut non possit non sequi ultimum intellectus practici judicium" 
He says further, in explanation of the same views : — 

"Unde Tertio sequitur, Cum Providentia non concurrat cum voluntate 
humana, vel per coactionem, cogendo voluntatem invitam, vel determinando 
physice, ut rem brutam et caecam absque ullo judicio, sed rationaliter, flectendo 
voluntatem modo ipsi convenient!, ut seipsam determinet, ut causa proxima 
actionum suarum proprio rationis judicio, et spontanea voluntatis electione, 
earn libertati nostrae nullam vim inferre, sed illam potius amice fovere. Quia 
duse istse tantum sunt necessitatis species, quae libertatem perimunt, et cum 
ea sunt davarxrot, necessitas naturalis, et coactionis ; Caeterae, quae oriuntur, 
vel a decreto Dei, et causae primae motione, vel ab objecto et judicio ultimo 
intellectus practici, tantum abest ut libertatem evertant, uteam magis tueantur, 
quia flectunt voluntatem, non cogunt, et faciunt ex nolente volentem. Quis- 
quis enim facit sponte quod vult ex rationis judicio et pleno voluntatis con- 
sensu, id non potest non libere facere, etiamsi necessario faciat, undecunque 
fluat ilia necessitas, sive ab ipsa rei existentia, quia quicquid est, quando est, 
necessario est, sive ab objecto meniem et voluntatem efficaciter movente [which is 
just philosophical necessity] sive a causa prima decernente et concurrente 
[that is, divine predestination and providence]."* 

We have had the less hesitation about laying before our 
readers these quotations from Turretine, because, in plain terms, 
they settle conclusively the question which we have undertaken 
to discuss ; in other words, they establish beyond dispute the posi- 
tion, that the repudiation in the Confession of the determination 
of the will by an absolute necessity of nature, does not, any more 
than the repudiation of determination by force, preclude the main- 
tenance of the doctrine of philosophical necessity. Libertarians 
may still assert that they regard the doctrine of philosophical 
necessity as implying a determination of the will by force or 
by a necessity of nature ; but they have no right to thrust their 
inferences or constructions upon their opponents, or to make these 
inferences the standard of what their opponents are to answer for. 
The allegation that the doctrine of philosophical necessity is in 
the face of the Confession, especially when it is adduced as a 
personal charge, must be proved by him who makes it. It can be 



Loc. vi. Qu. vi. s. 7. 



502 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

proved only by producing from the Confession statements which, 
according to the ordinary recognised meaning of the words, or the 
known intention of the authors of the document, import a denial 
or rejection of the doctrine in question. The quotations we have 
produced from Turretine prove, that, tried by the views and the 
language of the Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century, — 
the proper standard applicable to this matter,— the first section of 
the ninth chapter of the Confession contains nothing inconsistent 
with the doctrine of philosophical necessity. The statement there 
made was meant to be introductory to a description of the changes 
which man has experienced, or is to experience, in regard to free- 
will in his fourfold state ; and it was just intended to embody in 
substance a declaration to the effect, that whatever changes had 
occurred, or might occur, in the history of man in this respect, 
the essential features of his will or power of volition had con- 
tinued unchanged ; that nothing had ever taken place, either of an 
external or internal kind, which interfered with his deliberate and 
spontaneous choice, or with his moral responsibility ; that though, 
as is afterwards explained, man's will in one condition or period 
of his history had been determined to good, and in another condi- 
tion or period to evil, this determination to good or evil did not 
arise from force, or from an absolute necessity of nature; for 
that, if the determination to good or evil had originated in either 
of these causes, this would have been inconsistent with the nature 
of will as will, or with its essential feature as the characteristic of 
a rational and responsible being, — viz. a deliberate and spontaneous 
power of choice. The determination of man's will to good or 
evil by the application of external force, or by any necessity 
arising from the natural structure and inherent capacity of the 
power of volition, are expressly shut out. There is no appearance 
of the exclusion going beyond this; and if so, the doctrine of 
philosophical necessity is untouched. 

We could produce, if it were necessary, evidence from other 
authors that this was the sense in which the expressions under 
consideration were generally employed by the Calvinistic divines 
of the seventeenth century. We shall give only two brief 
extracts from Dr Owen, one of the very few names in theology 
entitled to stand side by side with Turretine, — extracts in which 
it will be observed that he uses the words "outward coaction" 
and " inward natural necessity," in the same sense in which the 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 503 

almost identical expressions are used in the Confession ; and 
plainly intimates that it is quite sufficient, in order to moral 
responsibility, to exclude these two species of necessity, and to 
retain the deliberation and spontaneity which are inconsistent 
with them. They are taken from his " Display of Arminianism ; 
being a discovery of the old Pelagian idol Freewill, with the new 
goddess Contingency." 

" Yet here observe that we do not absolutely oppose free-will, as if it were 
nomen inane, a mere figment, when there is no such thing in the world ; but 
only in that sense the Pelagians and Arminians do assert it. About words we 
will not contend. We grant man, in the substance of all his actions, as much 
power, liberty, and freedom as a mere created nature is capable of. We grant 
him to be free in his choice, from all outward coaction or inward natural 
necessity, to work according to election and deliberation, spontaneously em- 
bracing what seemeth good to him. Now, call this power free-will or what 
you please, so you make it not supreme, independent, and boundless, we are 
not at all troubled." And again : u We grant as large a freedom and dominion 
to our wills, over their own acts, as a creature subject to the supreme rule of 
God's providence is capable of. Endued we are .with such a liberty of will as 
is free from all outward compulsion and inward necessity, having an elective 
faculty of applying itself unto that which seems good unto it, in which it is a 
free choice, notwithstanding it is subservient to the decree of God."* 

The greatest and best-known names among the Calvinistic 
divines of the seventeenth century thus furnish us with satisfac- 
tory evidence, that the leading principle laid down in the West- 
minster Confession concerning the natural liberty of the will does 
not exclude, and was not intended to exclude, the doctrine of 
philosophical necessity ; and of course affords no evidence what- 
ever that Jonathan Edwards' theory touching the bondage of the 
will is heretical. 

The only thing else in the Confession that can be supposed to 
have any bearing upon the position taken up by Mr Stewart and 
Sir William Hamilton, is the statement that our first parents 
were left to the liberty of their own will, and that in the exercise 
of this liberty they sinned and fell. 

In the section immediately following that on which we have 
been commenting, and intended to describe how this matter stood 
in regard to the first period of man's history — the first depart- 
ment of his fourfold estate — it is put in this way : " Man in his 



* C. xii. vol. x. pp. 116, 119. 



504 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

state of innocency had freedom and power to will and to do that 
which is good and well-pleasing to God, but yet mutably, so that 
he might fall from it." This is a very important feature of the 
theology of the Reformers and of the Calvinistic divines of the 
seventeenth century, and it has been too much overlooked, as we 
shall afterwards explain, by Edwards and Chalmers ; but it has no 
bearing whatever upon the subject of philosophical necessity. The 
comprehensive doctrine, that man before the fall had freedom or 
liberty of will in the exercise of which he sinned, that by his fall 
into a state of sin he lost this freedom, and that men now in their 
natural state have it not, but are through regeneration to regain 
it, was during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries reckoned a 
leading feature of Calvinism. But for nearly a century past it 
has, chiefly through the influence of the writings of Edwards, 
been too much thrown into the background, although a chapter 
in the Westminster Confession has been devoted to the exposition 
of it. This doctrine, of course, implies that there is a freedom or 
liberty of will which man may have notwithstanding God's decrees 
foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass, notwithstanding His pro- 
vidence exercised in regulating and controlling all events, and 
notwithstanding any general laws which may have been impressed 
upon men's constitution for regulating their mental processes, and 
especially for determining their volitions. Calvinists have always 
held that all these things — viz. the foreordination and providence 
of God, the general structure and framework of man's mental 
constitution, and the general laws that determine his volitions — 
were unaffected by the fall ; that they stood in the same relation 
to the first sin of Adam as to any sins subsequently committed by 
him or his posterity ; and that they stood in the same relation to 
what was good in our first parents as to what -is good in regenerate 
men upon earth. All these things being the same both before and 
after the fall, it follows that the liberty of will which they ascribed 
to man unf alien, and which they denied to man after he fell, as 
well as the necessity or bondage or servitude which they ascribed 
to the will of men as they now come into the world, must be 
wholly different in their nature and source from liberty and 
necessity, in any of the senses in which they are usually made 
subjects of discussion among philosophers. And there is no 
difficulty in ascertaining what this difference is. It stands out 
palpably on the face of their system of theology. The liberty of 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 505 

will which they ascribed to man unfallen, was the effect of the 
tendency of his moral nature to what was good in virtue of his 
original righteousness, so that he could perfectly do God's will ; 
while at the same time he possessed that capacity mutably, so that 
he might fall. The necessity or servitude or bondage which 
they ascribed to the will of fallen man, consisted in the loss of the 
liberty above described, and in the actual prevailing tendency of 
his moral nature to evil because of the depravity which had over- 
spread it, so that he' could no longer will good, but could only will 
evil. The liberty which they thus ascribed to man in his original 
condition they regarded as entirely lost by the fall, and as having 
now no existence in men in their natural condition, or until re- 
stored, in some measure, by divine agency in regeneration. 

Liberty and necessity, in this sense and application, are entirely 
different, in their whole nature and grounds, from liberty and. 
necessity in the sense in which the position of Stewart and Hamil- 
ton has respect to them. The old Calvinistic divines — including 
the authors of the Westminster Confession — all held, that the 
foreordi nation and providence of God precluded liberty and estab- 
lished necessity in some sense, but in a sense quite different from 
that in which they are regarded as dependent upon righteous- 
ness or depravity of nature. Many Calvinists have regarded the 
foreordination and. providence of God as establishing, or at least 
countenancing, the doctrine of philosophical necessity, and as of 
course shutting out liberty of indifference, or the self-determining 
power of the will. But no intelligent Calvinist ever existed who 
thought that there was anything in the doctrines of Calvinism, 
individually or collectively, which threw any difficulty or obstacle 
in the way of men embracing and maintaining the doctrine of 
philosophical necessity. 

For this reason we have not thought it necessary to dwell upon 
any alleged inconsistency between the general principles of Cal- 
vinism and the doctrine of philosophical necessity. Mr Stewart 
does not allege any such inconsistency. Sir William himself 
rather insinuates than asserts it. The passages adduced from the 
Confession by Mr Stewart to prove his position, that the freedom 
of the human will (meaning thereby the libertarian as opposed to 
the necessitarian view of this matter) is asserted there, are not 
those which contain anything distinctively Calvinistic, but are 
statements which merely bear directly upon freedom or liberty in 



506 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

some sense or other. Of Sir William's bolder and more explicit 
assertions, that the doctrine of philosophical necessity " is in the 
face of the Confession as in the face of the Bible," and that " the 
theory of Jonathan Edwards touching the bondage of the will is, 
on the Calvinistic standard of the Westminster Confession, not 
only heterodox but heretical," he has not attempted to produce 
any evidence. We regret this ; for we are very confident that 
no learning and ingenuity could have invested with plausibility a 
position so untenable. It is quite plain that the only passages in 
the Confession which have any appearance of affording counte- 
nance to his assertions, are just those which are referred to by Mr 
Stewart. We have adduced and considered all the passages in 
the Confession which could by possibility give any appearance of 
countenance to Sir William's charge of heresy against Edwards : 
and we have shown that when these passages are interpreted ac- 
cording to the proper meaning of the words, and according to the 
recognised opinions and the established usus loquendi of the Cal- 
vinistic divines of the seventeenth century, every trace of the 
evidence which certain expressions in them might seem to furnish 
in support of the charge disappears, and that the accusation 
stands out in its true character as utterly groundless. 

Sir William, by alleging that Edwards' doctrine, when tried 
by the standard of the Confession, was not only heterodox but 
heretical, became bound to do a great deal more than merely 
produce a proof that there is a statement in the Confession which, 
when carefully examined and strictly interpreted, is inconsistent 
with it. This, if he could have produced it, would have been 
enough to entitle him to pronounce the doctrine heterodox or 
erroneous. But the way in which he " signalizes" the distinction 
between heterodox and heretical, shows that he was quite con- 
scious that he ought to do more than this. According to the 
received meaning of the word heretical as distinguished from 
heterodox, he was not entitled to apply this epithet to Edwards' 
doctrine, unless he was prepared to show that it ran counter to a 
statement ^occupying a place of prominence and of importance, 
and to establish this by evidence of commanding clearness and 
cogency. Heresy, as distinguished from mere heterodoxy, implies 
a palpable and decided difference in degree both with respect to 
the magnitude and prominence of the error, and the cogency of 
the evidence by which its erroneous character can be established. 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 507 

Even if the doctrine of philosophical necessity could be proved 
to be erroneous, it could not, if tried by a Calvinistic standard, 
be regarded as an error of such serious magnitude as to warrant 
the designation of a heresy. No Calvinist believing in the divine 
foreordination of all events can possibly think the doctrine of 
philosophical necessity a great and serious error, or regard it as 
heretical. He may possibly believe the doctrine to be erroneous 
— to be destitute of sufficient proof. But if he be really an intelli- 
gent Calvinist, he must see that all the leading objections against 
it tell equally against the Calvinistic doctrines which he holds, and 
that it harmonizes well with his whole system of theology. 

What is true of a Calvinist is true, mutatis mutandis, of a 
Calvinistic creed. There may be nothing in the Confession to 
furnish direct evidence in support of the doctrine of philosophical 
necessity — we do not believe that there is; there may even be 
statements in the Confession that are inconsistent with it and ex- 
clude it — we have proved that none such have been or can be 
produced ; but the allegation of heresy as implying, in all fair- 
ness, palpable and clearly proved opposition to the Confession in 
a point of vital importance, is perfectly preposterous. 

There is nothing, then, in the Westminster Confession that 
need occasion difficulty to any necessitarian acquainted with the 
way in which these subjects were discussed by the Calvinistic 
divines of the seventeenth century. If convinced of the truth of 
the doctrine of philosophical necessity, — whether upon the ground 
of the evidence directly and properly applicable to it as a psycho- 
logical question, or on the ground of its appearing to be logically 
deducible from the theological doctrines of God's foreordination 
and providence, — there is nothing in this conviction that need 
prevent him from assenting to the Westminster Confession, for 
assuredly there is nothing in that document which either is or was 
intended to be inconsistent with it. Mr Stewart's statement that 
the freedom of the human will is asserted in the Confession is 
true in one sense, though not in that in which he meant it. Sir 
William's assertion that Edwards' doctrine about the will is, when 
tried by the standard of the Confession, heretical, is not only 
destitute of all solid foundation, but is disproved by every fair 
and reasonable consideration bearing upon the settlement of the 
point in dispute. 

We must now advert briefly to the second position we laid down, 



508 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

— yiz. that there is nothing in the Calvinistic system of theology 
or in the Westminster Confession which requires men to hold the 
doctrine of philosophical necessity ; or in other words, that a man 
may conscientiously assent to the Westminster Confession although 
he should reject that doctrine. Edwards and Chalmers seem to 
have regarded the doctrine of necessity as an indispensable part of 
their Calvinism. They have not, indeed, formally laid down this 
position and attempted to prove it. They have rather assumed it 
as if it were self-evident, and usually write as if it were a matter 
of course, that men holding the Calvinistic doctrines of predesti- 
nation and providence must also hold their doctrine of necessity. 
Dr Chalmers, speaking of the philosophical doctrine of necessity 
and the theological doctrine of predestination, says : " It is one and 
the same doctrine in different aspects and with different relations ; 
in the one view with relation to nature, and in the other view with 
relation to God." And again : " Let the doctrine of philosophical 
necessity, or, theologically speaking, the doctrine of predestination, 
be as firmly established as it may," etc.* 

We are not prepared to concur in this identification of the 
philosophical doctrine of necessity with the theological doctrine of 
predestination. We regard it as unwarrantable and injurious. 
We are not satisfied that the doctrine of necessity can be deduced, 
in the way of logical consequence, from the doctrine of predesti- 
nation. The doctrine of necessity, held in combination with the 
doctrine of the providence of God as the creator, the upholder, and 
governor of the world, affords a proof of the doctrine of predes- 
tination ; for if such a system as necessity implies has been estab- 
lished by God, and is constantly superintended and controlled by 
Him, this must have been done for securing the accomplishment 
of His purposes ; and He must be actually executing His decrees, 
or carrying into effect His determinations, in those volitions which 
are the certain or necessary results of the constitution of nature, 
in its relation to the laws of man's thinking, feeling, and acting. 
But while the doctrine of necessity, if established, clearly and 
directly confirms the doctrine of predestination, it is not so clear 
that the doctrine of predestination affords ground for inferring or 
deducing the doctrine of necessity. Predestination implies that 
the end or result is certain, and that adequate provision has 



* Institutes of Theology, vol. ii. pp. 357, 366, 367. 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 509 

been made for bringing it about. But it does not indicate any- 
thing as to what must be the nature of this provision in regard to 
the different classes of events which are taking place under God's 
government, including the volitions of rational and responsible 
beings. Were we in the condition of being able to prove that 
God could not have foreseen and foreordained the volitions of 
rational and responsible beings, and made effectual provision for 
accomplishing His purposes in this most important department of 
His government, without having established the system of neces- 
sity, — without having settled in accordance with that doctrine the 
internal laws which regulate men's volitions, — this would prove 
that predestination established necessity, so that every predesti- 
narian was bound in consistency to be a necessitarian. But we 
have not materials to warrant us in maintaining that God could 
not have certainly accomplished all His purposes in and by the 
volitions of responsible beings, unless He had established the 
scheme of necessity. And if so, there is a hiatus in every process 
by which we attempt to establish a logical transition from predes- 
tination to necessity, which cannot be filled up. Predestination 
and necessity manifestly harmonize with and fit into each other. 
Sir William's insinuation that necessity is a corruption of pure 
Calvinism is preposterous. Every intelligent Calvinist must be 
disposed to regard the doctrine of necessity with favour, as having 
a large amount of antecedent probability attaching to it. He must 
see that there is no serious objection to the doctrine of necessity 
that does not equally apply to predestination; and that the doctrine 
of necessity, if established, gives some confirmation to the doctrine 
of predestination,, and throws some light upon the means by which 
God executes His decrees or accomplishes His purposes, so far as 
the volitions of responsible beings are concerned. All this is true 
and very evident. A predestinarian can scarcely avoid, perhaps, 
having a leaning to the doctrine of necessity ; but unless he can 
find some argument or process of reasoning which warrants him 
in asserting that God could not have made effectual provision for 
accomplishing His purposes in this department except by means 
of the state of matters which necessity implies, he cannot pass 
directly , in the way of inference, from the one doctrine to the other. 
From the nature of the case, the truth of the doctrine of 
.necessity is properly and primarily a question in philosophy. It 
respects directly only the laws which regulate men's mental pro- 



510 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

cesses and determine their volitions. In order to settle it, we 
must look within ourselves, and survey our own mental operations. 
The materials that legitimately bear upon the decision of it must 
be all derived from consciousness, though, of course, they may 
branch out into argumentations based upon the data which con- 
sciousness furnishes, and may thus pertain to the department of 
metaphysics as well as psychology. The Bible does not tell us 
anything about the causes or principles that ordinarily regulate or 
determine men's general exercise of their natural power of volition. 
It affords us no materials for ascertaining whether the laws that 
determine our volitions presuppose the libertarian or the necessi- 
tarian theory. It leaves all such questions to be determined by 
an investigation of the evidence naturally and appropriately appli- 
cable to them, — that is, by an examination of man himself, of 
his mental constitution and ordinary mental processes. And not 
only does the Bible not determine any such psychological and 
metaphysical questions directly, but it does not teach any doctrines 
which, indirectly or by consequence, require or necessitate us to 
take a particular side in any of those questions which have been 
controverted among philosophers upon philosophical grounds. If 
philosophers should profess to deduce, from a survey of men's 
mental constitution, conclusions which contradict any doctrine 
revealed in Scripture, this should be attended to and answered ; 
and no great difficulty has ever been experienced in dealing with 
allegations of this sort. If they should profess to find, on a survey 
of men's mental constitution, grounds for adopting certain views 
concerning the liberty or bondage of the will, which would pre- 
clude or shut out the scriptural doctrines, that God has foreseen 
and foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, — or that He is ever 
exercising a most wise, holy, and powerful providence over all 
His creatures, and all their actions, — or that fallen man — man as 
he is — -hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good 
accompanying salvation, — it would be needful and not difficult to 
expose the unsoundness of these views, or the falsehood of the 
inferences deduced from them. But unless men profess to have 
established something inconsistent with these theological doctrines, 
we do not know that there is any particular theory concerning the 
will or the laws that regulate its operations, deduced upon philo- 
sophical grounds from an examination of men's mental constitution 
and processes, which can be proved to be inconsistent with any 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 511 

statement in the word of God, or witli any of the doctrines taught 
there, and which must therefore, on scriptural and theological 
grounds, be rejected. 

Calvinists in general, when they have been led to attend to 
this particular subject, have adopted necessitarian views, as har- 
monizing most fully and obviously with their theological con- 
victions. But this has not been universally the case. Some 
Calvinists have rejected the doctrine of philosophical necessity, 
and much larger numbers have declined to give any decisive or 
explicit deliverance concerning it. Some Calvinists have held that 
the theological doctrines of predestination and providence lead, 
by necessary logical sequence, to the doctrine of philosophical 
necessity. But it cannot be proved that either the certainty or 
immutability of the event, or the agency of God in providence in 
regulating and controlling men's volitions, necessarily requires or 
implies this necessity, or would be certainly precluded by a 
liberty of indifference, or the self-determining power of the will. 
•No doubt the doctrine of necessity affords some assistance in 
forming a conception as to how it is that God accomplishes His 
purposes and controls our volitions without interfering with the 
essential qualities of the will or with our moral responsibility ; 
while the self-determining power of the will seems to involve this 
matter in serious difficulties. But it is, we think, unwarranted 
and presumptuous to assert, that even a self-determining power 
in the will would place it beyond the sphere of the divine control, 
— would prevent Him in whom we live, move, and have our 
being, who is everywhere and at all times present in the exercise 
of all His perfections, who searcheth the heart and trieth the reins 
of the children of men, from superintending and directing all its 
movements according to the counsel of His own will. And unless 
this unwarranted and presumptuous position be taken up, it seems 
impossible to prove that there is anything in the Calvinistic 
system which makes it indispensable for its supporters, in point of 
logical consistency, to adopt the doctrine of philosophical necessity. 
Until this position be established, it is still open to Calvinists as to 
others, to examine the question as between liberty and necessity 
upon its own proper psychological and metaphysical grounds ; 
and to adopt the one side or the other, according as they may 
think that the evidence for the one or the other, derived from an 
investigation into man's mental constitution, preponderates. 



512 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

We have not ourselves, in the course of this discussion, indi- 
cated any opinion upon the precise point involved in the contro- 
versy between the libertarians and the necessitarians ; and we 
really cannot say that we have formed a very decided opinion in 
favour of either side. Upon the whole, we regard the evidence 
in favour of the doctrine of philosophical necessity as preponderat- 
ing. In order to dispose of this doctrine satisfactorily, it seems 
necessary that the argument of Edwards in favour of it, and 
against the self-determining power of the will, should be answered. 
We have never seen this done, and we scarcely think that it can 
be done. We have read lately the ablest and most elaborate 
answer that has been given to Edwards, viz. " Tappan's Treatise 
on the Will." But we have not been convinced by it that 
Edwards has failed in establishing his leading position ; on the 
contrary, Tappan's failure has rather confirmed us in the convic- 
tion that Edwards cannot be answered. But the only point with 
which we have to do at present is this, that we do not hold our- 
selves tied up to take either the one side or the other, by anything 
contained in the sacred Scriptures, in the Calvinistic system of 
theology, or in the Westminster Confession of Faith. 

Sir James Mackintosh, in an article upon Stewart's " Prelimi- 
nary Dissertation," * asserted the identity of the subjects of neces- 
sity and predestination, — agreeing in the main with the views 
indicated by Edwards and Chalmers, but going so far as to say 
explicitly, that " it is not possible to make any argumentative 
defence of Calvinism which is not founded on the principles of 
necessity." He became convinced, however, of the unsoundness 
of this view of the closeness of the connection between the theo- 
logical and the philosophical doctrine, and retracted it in a note 
subjoined to his own Preliminary Dissertation. He says there,f 
that " more careful reflection had corrected a confusion common 
to him with most writers upon these subjects." But he now goes 
into the other extreme ; and besides, introduces some additional 
confusion, which it may be proper to correct. He now brings in, 
in connection with this matter, the distinction between Sublapsa- 
rian and Supralapsarian views ; and asserts that " Sublapsarian 
predestination is evidently irreconcilable with the doctrine of ne- 
cessity," but that " the Supralapsarian scheme may be built upon 



Edinburgh Review, vol. xxxvi. f Note 0, p. 423. 



Essay IX,] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 513 

necessitarian principles." Although Mackintosh had not, in all 
probability, turned over so many theological books as Hamilton, 
he was well acquainted with theological subjects. But the state- 
ment which we have quoted from him is certainly inaccurate. 
The reason he assigns why Sublapsarian predestination is irrecon- 
cilable with necessity is, that the Sublapsarians admit that men 
had free-will before the fall, which he thinks Supralapsarians 
cannot do. The inaccuracy of this notion must be evident from 
the explanation given in the former part of this article, as to the 
real nature, import, and grounds of the freedom of will which 
man had before the fall, and which he lost by sin. The free-ivill 
vjhich has been represented as possessed by man before the fall and 
as lost by sin, has no connection ichatever ivith the discussion about 
philosophical necessity, and may be, and has been held equally by 
Sublapsarian and Supralapsarian Calvinists. 

It is much to be regretted that Stewart, Mackintosh, and 
Hamilton should have all concurred in putting forth erroneous 
representations upon this subject. The errors of such men it is 
an imperative duty to point out and to correct. But it is still 
more imperative to point out the oversights or errors of men who 
are much higher authorities upon theological matters, such as 
Edwards and Chalmers. We have already explained the grounds 
on which we hold the assumption by these great men of the iden- 
tity, or the necessary connection, of the theological doctrine of 
predestination and of the philosophical doctrine of necessity, to be 
unwarranted. We have indicated, though very briefly and im- 
perfectly, the considerations by which we think it can be shown, 
that the Calvinistic doctrines of predestination and providence, as 
taught in Scripture, do not either include, or necessarily lead to, 
the doctrine of necessity; and may be fully expounded and applied 
by men who refuse to admit, or who even positively reject, that 
doctrine. The doctrine of necessity, when once established, leads 
by strict logical sequence to predestination, unless men take refuge 
in atheism, But it does not seem to follow e converso, that the 
doctrine of predestination leads necessarily to the doctrine of 
necessity ; as men may hold that God could certainly execute His 
decrees and infallibly accomplish His purposes in and by the voli- 
tions of men, even though He had not impressed upon their mental 
constitution the law of necessity, as that by which its processes 
are regulated and its volitions determined. 

VOL. I. 33 



514 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

We would now advert very briefly to the injurious tendency 
and consequences of this assumed identity or necessary connection 
of the two doctrines — the theological and philosophical. It tends 
to throw into the background the true scriptural, theological doc- 
trine of necessity, — the doctrine of the servitude or bondage of 
the will of fallen man — man as he is — to sin, because of the de- 
pravity which has overspread his moral nature. Not that Edwards 
or Chalmers have denied or rejected this doctrine. This would 
certainly have been heresy ; for the doctrine is very prominently 
and explicitly asserted in the Westminster Confession. It is, in- 
deed, plainly involved in what they were accustomed to teach con- 
cerning the entire corruption and depravity of human nature; and 
they would have had no hesitation in admitting this, and in pro- 
fessing their belief in the doctrine as a portion of God's revealed 
truth. Still, it is palpable that the doctrine of the bondage of the 
will of man to sin, because of depravity, has no prominence what- 
ever in their writings when they treat of the doctrine of philoso- 
phical necessity. This we regard as an evil ; and we have no 
doubt that it is to be ascribed to the fact of their minds being 
engrossed, when they contemplated man's natural condition, by 
the idea of a necessity of a different kind, but of far inferior 
importance in itself, and resting upon lower and more uncertain 
grounds. 

The practice of distinguishing, in the exposition of this sub- 
ject, between the freedom of man's will in his unf alien and in his 
fallen condition, and indeed of viewing it distinctively with re- 
ference to the different stages or periods of his fourfold state, — as 
unfallen, fallen, regenerate, or glorified, — has prevailed in the 
church in almost all ages. These views were fully brought out 
and applied by Augustine. They had a place in the speculations 
of the schoolmen, as may be seen in Peter Lombard's Four Books 
of Sentences,* and in the commentaries upon it. They were 
embraced and promulgated by the whole body of the Reformers, 
both Lutheran and Calvinistic. They have a prominent place in 
the writings of the great systematic divines of the seventeenth 
century. They have a prominent place in the Westminster Con- 
fession, — the ninth chapter, entitled " Of free-will," being entirely 
devoted to the statement of them. And what is in some respects 



* Lib. ii. Dist. 25. 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 515 

peculiarly interesting, the doctrine of the loss of man's free-will 
by the fall, and of the servitude of the will of fallen man to sin 
because of depravity, was held by Baius, Jansenius, and Quesnel, 
and their followers, — the best men and the best theologians the 
Church of Rome has ever produced ; — and in them was condemned 
by papal bulls, — a fact which confirms our conviction, that this is 
one of the great cardinal doctrines of Scripture, which may be 
said to have the support of the concurrent testimony of the uni- 
versal church of Christ — of the great body of those whom Christ 
has enlightened and sanctified. This servitude or bondage of the 
will of man to sin because of depravity, was the only necessity 
which the great body of the most competent judges in all ages 
have regarded as being taught in Scripture as a portion of God's 
revealed truth, or as being necessary for the full exposition of the 
other cognate doctrines of Christian theology. This necessity now 
attaching to the human will they regarded as a property of man, 
viewed not simply as a creature, but as a fallen creature, — not as 
springing from his mere relation to God as the foreordainer of all 
things and the actual ruler and governor of the world, nor from 
the mere operation of laws which God has impressed upon the 
general structure and framework of man's mental constitution, — 
but from a cause distinct from all these, that is, from the depra- 
vity, or prevailing aversion from God and tendency to evil, super- 
induced upon man's character by the fall. If this be indeed the 
scriptural view of the bondage of man's will, it ought surely to 
be openly proclaimed, and pressed prominently upon our atten- 
tion, instead of being overlooked or thrown into the background, 
in favour of another kind of necessity, as it certainly is in the 
writings of Edwards and Chalmers on that subject. They would 
no doubt have admitted the doctrine and defended it, if it had been 
pressed upon their attention ; but in point of fact they have scarcely 
ever adverted to it. It seems to have been in their minds absorbed 
or thrown into the background, and kept out of view, by the more 
general subject of liberty and necessity in the form in which it 
has been commonly discussed by philosophers, and in which it is 
held to apply to man at all times, and irrespectively of his history 
and position as fallen and sinful. In Edwards' great work on the 
" Freedom of the Will," there is no reference to this distinction 
between the liberty of the will in man unfallen and in man fallen, 
or to the bondage of the will of fallen man to sin because of 



516 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

depravity. It contains only an elaborate proof of the doctrine of 
philosophical necessity, as opposed to a self-determining power of 
the will and a liberty of indifference, with an answer to the objec- 
tions commonly adduced against it. This we cannot but regard 
as a serious defect ; while at the same time it is important to 
observe, that his proof of the compatibility of the philosophical 
doctrine of necessity with responsibility and moral agency, is at 
least equally applicable to the defence of the scriptural and theo- 
logical doctrine of man's inability because of depravity to will 
anything spiritually good ; and especially the great principle which 
he has so conclusively established, viz. " that the essence of the 
virtue and vice of dispositions of heart and acts of the will, lies 
not in their cause but in their nature." The influence of the 
writings of Edwards has tended greatly to throw this important 
scriptural doctrine of the bondage of the will of man to sin because 
of depravity into the background; and Dr Chalmers having in 
this respect walked very much in his footsteps, has thrown the 
influence of his wonderful powers and great name into the same 
scale. Edwards and Chalmers have not gone in face of the 
Confession, or afforded any plausible ground for stamping upon 
them the brand of heresy. But they have certainly, in their 
engrossment with this philosophical doctrine of necessity, about 
which the Confession of Faith says nothing, left out of view ah 
important theological doctrine, to which the Confession gives pro- 
minence, and which certainly ought to have a distinct and definite 
place assigned to it in the exposition of the scheme of Christian 
theology. 

Not only, however, has the theological doctrine of the servitude 
of the will of man to sin, or the inability of man in his natural 
condition to will anything spiritually good because of depravity, 
been thrown into the background by the undue exaltation of a 
merely philosophical topic; but the impression has been produced, 
that the maintenance of some of the leading and peculiar doctrines 
of Christianity is most intimately connected with, or rather de- 
pendent upon, the establishment of certain philosophical theories ; 
and this impression is neither true nor safe. 

Edwards and Chalmers seem always to assume that the theo- 
logical doctrine of predestination and the philosophical doctrine of 
necessity are identical, or at least are so connected that they must 
stand or fall together ; and the impression thus produced is fitted 



Essay IX.] £>OCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 517 

to lead men to regard the proof or evidence of the one doctrine as 
bound up with, or dependent upon, the proof or evidence of the 
other. And we cannot but deprecate this result, as fitted to elevate 
the doctrine of necessity to a place and influence to which, how- 
ever fully it may be established as true by its own appropriate 
evidence, it has not, and cannot have, a rightful claim ; and as 
fitted also to lay upon the scriptural doctrine of predestination a 
burden or servitude to which it cannot be legitimately subjected. 
The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination has a sufficiently strong 
foundation in direct evidence, both from reason and Scripture, to 
maintain itself in opposition to all inferential objections to it, — 
and there are really no others, — and to bear up along with it every 
position, theological or philosophical, that can be really proved to 
be involved in or deducible from it. But still, as it is a doctrine 
which usually calls forth strong prejudices, and is assailed by 
plausible objections, it is right that we should beware of attempt- 
ing to burden it with any weight which it is not bound to carry ; 
or representing it as obliged to stand or fall with a doctrine so 
much inferior to it, at once in intrinsic importance, and in the 
kind and degree of evidence on which it rests. 

It has never been alleged that there is anything in the West- 
minster Confession, apart from its statement of the great doctrines 
of Calvinism, which seems to require men to hold the doctrine of 
philosophical necessity; so that this point does not require any 
separate treatment. 

Before quitting this subject, we would like to give some little 
explanation of the remaining portion of the ninth chapter of the 
Westminster Confession on free-will. The chapter, as a whole, 
is a very remarkable and impressive — we might almost call it 
eloquent — statement of the scriptural truths bearing upon this 
subject, through all the leading stages in the eventful history of 
man, or of the human race. We have already considered the first 
section, setting forth the general doctrine of the natural liberty of 
the will, which it must always retain, and which it could not lose 
without ceasing to be will, viewed as an essential quality of a 
rational and responsible being ; and excluding the determina- 
tion of it to good or evil by force or by any absolute necessity of 
nature. Although the will has a natural liberty which prevents it 
from being determined to good or evil by such causes or influences 
as would manifestly exclude deliberate choice and spontaneous 



518 CALVINISM AND THE * [Essay IX. 

agency, yet it has, in point of fact, at different periods or in 
different conditions, been determined both to good and to evil. 
To each of the four great eras in this matter, or the different 
aspects in man's fourfold state, one of the four remaining sections 
in this chapter is devoted. To the first of these, or section 2d, — 
describing man's freedom of will in his state of innocency, — we 
have already adverted, and we need not now dwell upon it. The 
3d section — describing the condition of men as to free-will in their 
natural fallen state — is in some respects the most important, as 
bringing out a leading and most influential feature in the cha- 
racter of all men as they come into the world ; and it is most 
intimately connected with the subject we have been discussing, 
inasmuch as it describes the only necessity which the Scripture 
represents as attaching to man by nature, and the only necessity 
therefore which can be held as needful to be taken into account 
in expounding the general scheme of Christian doctrine. It is 
this : — " Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all 
ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation, so as 
a natural man being altogether averse from that good, and dead 
in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to 
prepare himself thereunto." The fundamental proposition here 
is, that man hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual 
good accompanying salvation; and the remainder of the statement 
is intended partly to indicate the leading ground on which this 
doctrine rests, viz. that a natural man is altogether averse from 
spiritual good and dead in sin, — and partly to bring out the great 
practical conclusion which results from it, viz. that he is not able 
by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself 
thereunto. The fundamental doctrine is, that man, by his fall 
into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to anything 
spiritually good ; and, of course, is in entire bondage or servitude 
to sin, that is, to his own natural sinful dispositions or tendencies. 
The question is, — Is this really the view which the word of God 
gives us of man's natural condition and capacities in regard to 
spiritual objects and results ? and this question is to be decided by 
a careful investigation and application of all the scriptural state- 
ments and principles bearing upon the subject. Does the Scrip- 
ture teach us that man, in his natural condition, and antecedently 
to his becoming the subject of the gracious operations of God's 
Spirit, cannot really will anything spiritually good ? and, more 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 519 

especially, that he is unable to will to turn from sin unto God, or to 
prepare himself for so turning % It seems plain enough that this 
doctrine is involved in, or clearly and certainly deducible from, 
that of the complete and entire corruption or depravity of human 
nature. The doctrine of original sin or of native depravity, in the 
sense in which it is held by orthodox divines, implies that man, 
in his natural condition, has no tendency or inclination towards 
what is spiritually good, — that all his tendencies or inclinations 
are towards what is evil, — and that he does and can do nothing 
which is really pleasing and acceptable to God. If he is wholly 
averse from all good and wholly inclined to all evil, it would seem 
that he cannot will anything good ; because the will or power of 
volition must be determined and characterized by the general ten- 
dency or disposition of the moral nature of the being who possesses 
and exercises it. God can and must always will what is good, 
because His moral nature is essentially and unchangeably holy. 
Man in his unfallen state could always will what is good, or as 
the Confession says, had freedom and power to will and to do 
what was acceptable to God, because he was possessed of a pure 
and holy moral nature, endowed with original righteousness. And 
upon the same ground, because man now has a wholly depraved 
or corrupted nature, without any original righteousness, he has no 
ability of will to anything spiritually good. 

This doctrine of the utter bondage of the will of men to sin 
because of depravity, or of the inability of men in their natural 
fallen condition to will or to do anything spiritually good, is not 
entirely dependent for its scriptural evidence upon its being in- 
volved in, or necessarily deducible from, the doctrine of the entire 
and total, and not merely partial or comparative, corruption of 
man's moral nature by the fall. For there are scriptural state- 
ments about men's natural state which bear directly and imme- 
diately upon the more limited topic of their inability to will what 
is spiritually good. Still the connection between the two doctrines 
is such as to remind us of the vast importance of being thoroughly 
decided in our convictions as to what Scripture teaches concern- 
ing the natural state of man as a fallen and sinful creature, and 
thoroughly familiar with the scriptural materials by which our 
convictions may be established and defended. It was a service of 
inestimable value which Edwards rendered to sound Christian 
theology, when, in his work upon " Original Sin," he so conclu- 



520 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

sively and unanswerably established from Scripture, reason, and 
experience, the great doctrine — " that all mankind are under the 
influence of a prevailing effectual tendency in their nature to that 
sin and wickedness which implies their utter and eternal ruin." 
The conclusive demonstration of this " great Christian doctrine," 
or the unanswerable establishment of this great fact as an actual 
feature in the condition of all men as they come into this world, 
entitles Edwards' work upon " Original Sin," notwithstanding 
some measure of obscurity and confusion on the subject of impu- 
tation, to be regarded as one of the most valuable, permanent, 
possessions of the Christian church. 

The next stage in the history of the human race with respect 
to free-will, viewed as being virtually the history of a man, — of 
one man, — at different periods (and this is the light in which the 
matter is really represented to us in Scripture), is thus described 
in the Confession :* "When God converts a sinner, and translates 
him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bond- 
age under sin, and by His grace enables him freely to will and to 
do that which is spiritually good. Yet so as that by reason of his 
remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that 
which is good, but doth also will that which is evil." Here again 
there is freedom of will ascribed to man in his regenerate state, — 
that is, an ability to will good as well as to will evil. In the regene- 
ration of his nature the reigning power of depravity is subdued, and 
all the effects which it produced are more or less fully taken away. 
One of the principal of these effects was the utter bondage or 
servitude of the will to sin, because of the ungodly and depraved 
tendency of the whole moral nature to what was displeasing and 
offensive to God. This ungodly and depraved tendency is now, in 
conversion, to a large extent removed, and an opposite tendency 
is implanted. Thus the will is set free or emancipated from the 
bondage under which it was held. It is no longer subjected to a 
necessity — arising from the general character and tendency of 
man's moral nature — to will only what is evil, but is now able also 
freely to will what is good ; and it does freely will what is good, 
though, from the remaining corruption and depravity of man's 
nature, it still wills also what is evil. It is not emancipated from 
the influence of God's decrees foreordaining whatever comes to 

* Sec. iv. 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 521 

pass. It is not placed beyond the control of His providence, 
whereby in the execution of His decrees He ever rules and 
governs all His creatures and all their actions. It is not set free 
from the operation of those general laws which God has impressed 
upon man's mental constitution, for directing the exercise of his 
faculties and regulating his mental processes. But it is set free 
from the dominion of depravity ; and thereby it is exempted from 
the necessity of willing only what is evil, and made equally able 
freely to will what is good. It has recovered to a large extent 
the only liberty it ever lost; and it is determined and characterized 
noiv — as it had been in all the previous stages of man's history, 
both before and after his fall — by his general moral character and 
tendencies ; — free to good, when man had the image of God and 
original righteousness, but yet mutable so that it could will evil, — 
in bondage, when man was the slave of sin, so that it -could will 
only evil and not good, — emancipated, when man was regenerated, 
so that it could freely will good as well as evil, though still bear- 
ing many traces of the former bondage and of its injurious effects, 
— and finally, to adopt again the language of the Confession in 
closing the admirable chapter on this subject, " to be made per- 
fectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory." 

The extract from Sir William Hamilton, on which chiefly we 
have been commenting, occurs in connection with a discussion 
embodying some important and valuable truth, — truth which ad- 
mits of an obvious application to the exposition and defence of 
Christian, and especially of Calvinistic, doctrines. He declares 
his satisfaction in being able to show, that his doctrine of " the 
conditioned " harmonizes with the general spirit of divine reve- 
lation, by inculcating humility in our speculations in the investi- 
gation of truth because of the imperfection and limitation of our 
faculties, — by showing the unwarrantableness and absurdity of 
making our capacity of distinctly conceiving and fully compre- 
hending doctrines, the measure or standard of their absolute truth, 
or of their consistency with each other ; and the perfect reason- 
ableness of believing, upon sufficient grounds, things which in 
some respects are beyond our grasp, and cannot be fully taken in 
or comprehended by the exercise of our faculties when brought 
directly to bear upon them. Now all this is very important truth 
in connection with the exposition and defence of the great doctrines 
of revelation, and especially of the profound and mysterious doc- 



522 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX. 

trines of Calvinism. Sir William has not here put forth anything 
which is not in substance to be found in the writings of theo- 
logians, and which, indeed, has not been brought forward more 
or less fully, and established more or less conclusively, by every 
intelligent defender of Calvinism. But it is not very common to 
find matter of this sort in the writings of philosophers ; and Sir 
William, by giving it his sanction, has done a real service to the 
cause of truth and orthodoxy. He could not, however, let this 
topic pass without indulging himself in some characteristic state- 
ments, to which it may be proper briefly to advert. In his usual 
spirit he labours to convey the impression, that these views about 
the limitation of our faculties, and the bearing of this upon the 
discussion of mysterious doctrines, have not in general been 
understood and applied aright by theologians. He seems half 
inclined to insinuate, that these principles were little known till 
he promulgated them. But this was rather too absurd ; and 
accordingly he feels constrained to make the following concession : 
— " It must, however, be admitted, that confessions of the total 
inability of man to conceive the union of what he should believe 
united, are to be found, and they are found not perhaps less 
frequently, and certainly in more explicit terms, among Catholic 
than among Protestant theologians."* It is certainly quite true, 
as is here asserted, that such statements " are to be found" — and 
indeed they constitute a perfectly familiar commonplace — among 
orthodox theologians. The alleged greater explicitness of Catho- 
lics than Protestants in stating these principles, is a mere gratis 
dictum, which has no foundation in the realities of the case. This 
statement seems to have been hazarded for the mere purpose of 
ushering in a quotation from Cardinal Cajetan, which, though 
about the best thing ever written upon the subject, Sir William 
felt confident was wholly unknown to theologians now-a-days. 
He described the quotation as " the conclusion of what, though 
wholly overlooked, appears to me as the ablest and truest criticism 
of the many fruitless, if not futile, attempts at conciliating the 
ways of God to the understanding of man, in the great articles of 
divine foreknowledge and predestination (which are both embar- 
rassed by the self-same difficulties) and human free-will." Sir 
William describes the passage as " wholly overlooked," notwith- 



Discussions, p. 627. 



Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 523 

standing its superlative merits. Now it so happens that we 
remember two instances — and there are in all probability more — 
in which this very quotation from Cajetan had been produced 
and commended by eminent writers, — one of them being no other 
than Bayle, who so often furnishes passages to " persons of ordi- 
nary information." Gisbertus Voetius, one of the best known 
names in the theology of the seventeenth century, — a man who 
was at least as thoroughly versant in the literature of theology 
as Sir William was in that of philosophy, and who knew as much 
of the literature of philosophy as Sir William did of that of theo- 
logy, — has quoted with approbation a part of this passage from 
Cajetan, in a " Dissertatio Epistolica de Termino Vita?," * originally 
published in 1634, and republished at Utrecht in 1669, in the 
Appendix to the fifth volume of his " Selectee Disputationes." 
The passage in Bayle is to be found in the second part of his 
"Response aux Questions d'un Provincial,"! where the extract 
from Cajetan is given as quoted with approbation by an emi- 
nent Dominican theologian, Alvarez, in a " Treatise de Auxiliis 
Divina? Gratise." Sir William, then, was mistaken in represent- 
ing this passage in Cajetan as " wholly overlooked." We do not 
suppose, indeed, that it was suggested to him by Voet or Bayle, 
for we rather suspect, especially as the passage after all contains 
nothing very extraordinary, that it was produced and paraded in 
the honest belief that no one knew anything about it but himself. 
It may be worth while to mention, that the discussion in con- 
nection with which this passage is introduced by Bayle, is very 
similar to that in which Sir William brings it in. Bayle was 
doing on that occasion just what Sir William did in the imme- 
diately following part of his Appendix, — viz. collecting what he 
calls " testimonies to the limitation of our knowledge from the 
limitation of our faculties." Bayle had often spoken very much to 
the same effect as Sir William has done, about the reasonableness 
and obligation of believing when we cannot know and fully com- 
prehend. But this, coming from Bayle, was suspected of being 
intended to undermine the foundations of a rational faith ; and to 
amount in substance very much to the same thing as Hume's 
well-known sneer about our holy religion being founded not on 
reason but on faith. Bayle defended himself against these 



* P. 107. f Chap. 161, (Euvres, vol. iii. p. 837. 



524 CALVINISM AND PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. [Essay IX. 

charges in the second and third of the " Eclaircissemens," sub- 
joined to his Dictionary ; and more formally and elaborately 
in the second part of his " Response aux Questions d'un Pro- 
vincial." He was contending then against M. Jacquelot, who 
was a minister of the French Protestant Church, and, after the 
revocation of the Edict of Nantes, settled as minister of the 
French Church in Berlin. Jacquelot wrote a series of three 
works against Bayle; and though he was a man of real ability, 
he certainly gave his skilful adversary some advantage over him, 
by taking ground which in the present day we would describe 
as too rationalistic. Several other eminent men took part in the 
controversy, especially La Placette, who, after the revocation of 
the Edict of Nantes, became minister of the French Protestant 
Church at Copenhagen. Different grounds were taken by the 
different combatants in opposing Bayle ; and then some interest- 
ing discussions arose among themselves, as to the best ground to 
be taken in dealing with the great sceptic. The controversy thus, 
viewed as a whole, became extremely curious and interesting. 
We cannot dwell upon it ; and can only remark, that Bayle had 
no difficulty in producing from many eminent men, both theolo- 
gians and philosophers, quotations which certainly seemed very 
much the same in substance with his own statements, however 
different they might be in spirit and object; and that these 
quotations are in some instances identical with, and in general 
very similar to, those which Sir William has collected as " testi- 
monies to the limitation of our knowledge from the limitation of 
our faculties." 



CALVINISM 



PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 



One of the leading forms which, in the present day, aversion to 
divine truth exhibits, is a dislike to precise and definite statements 
upon the great subjects brought before us in the sacred Scrip- 
tures. This dislike to precision and definiteness in doctrinal state- 
ments sometimes assumes the form of reverence for the Bible, as 
if it arose from an absolute deference to the authority of the divine 
word, and an unwillingness to mix up the reasonings and deduc- 
tions of men with the direct declarations of God. We believe that 
it arises much more frequently, and to a much greater extent, 
from a dislike to the controlling influence of Scripture, — from a 
desire to escape, as far as possible without denying its authority, 
from the trammels of its regulating power as an infallible rule of 
faith and duty. It is abundantly evident, from the statements of 
Scripture as well as from the experience of every age and country, 
that men in their natural condition, unrenewed by divine grace, 
have a strong aversion to right views of the divine character and 
of the way of salvation, or to the great system of doctrines revealed 
to us in the Bible ; and are anxious to escape from any apparent 
obligation to believe them. The most obvious and effectual way 
of accomplishing this, is to deny the divine origin and authority 



* British and Foreign Evangelical 
Review. October 1861. 

" Essays on some of the Difficulties 
in the Writings of the Apostle Paul." 



Essay III. On Election. By Rich- 
aed Whately, D.D., Archbishop of 
Dublin, Seventh edition. London, 
1854. 



526 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

of the sacred Scriptures, — their title and their fitness to be a rule 
of faith or standard of doctrine. And when men, from whatever 
cause, do not see their way to do this plainly and openly, they 
often attempt it, or something like it, in an indirect and insidious 
way, by distorting and perverting the statements of Scripture, 
by evading their fair meaning and application, or by devising 
pretences for declining to turn them to full account as a revela- 
tion of God's will to men, or to derive from them the whole 
amount of information about divine and eternal things which they 
seem fitted and intended to convey. 

It has been the generally received doctrine of orthodox divines, 
and it is in entire accordance with reason and common sense, that 
we are bound to receive as true, on God's authority, not only 
what is " expressly set down in Scripture," but also what, " by good 
and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Scripture;"* 
and heretics, in every age and of every class, have, even when 
they made a profession of receiving what is expressly set down in 
Scripture, shown the greatest aversion to what are sometimes 
called Scripture consequences, — that is, inferences or deductions 
from scriptural statements, beyond what is expressly contained in 
the mere words of Scripture, as they stand in the page of the 
sacred record. Some interesting discussion on the subject of the 
warrantableness, the validity, and the binding obligation of Scrip- 
ture consequences took place in the early part of last century 
among the English Presbyterians, when some of them had been 
led to embrace Arian views. With the dishonesty which the 
history of the church proves to have been so generally a marked 
characteristic of heretics and men of progress, those of them who 
had really, in their convictions, abandoned the generally received 
doctrine of the Trinity, professed at first to object only to the 
unscriptural terms in which the doctrine was usually embodied ; 
declaimed about freedom of thought and ecclesiastical tyranny; 
and denounced all Scripture consequences as unwarrantable 
and precarious, while they were, of course, quite willing to 
subscribe to the ipsissima verba of Scripture. But the progress 
of the discussion soon showed that these were hypocritical pre- 
tences ; and that the men who employed them had deliberately 
adopted opinions in regard to the Father, the Son, and the Holy 



* Westminster Confession, c. i. s. 6. 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 527 

Spirit, which have been generally repudiated by the church 
of Christ, and which could no more be brought out fully 
and distinctly as opposed to what they reckoned error, in 
the mere words of Scripture, than the sounder views which they 
rejected. 

Upon the occasion to which we have referred, the repudiation 
of Scripture consequences, and the opposition to precise and 
definite views on doctrinal subjects, were directed chiefly against 
the doctrine of the Trinity. In the present day these views and 
tendencies are directed chiefly against the doctrine of a real 
vicarious atonement for the sins of men, and against the peculiar 
doctrines of the Calvinistic system of theology. Not that the true 
scriptural doctrine of the Trinity is more relished by men of 
rationalistic and sceptical tendencies, than it was in former times. 
It is not so. But men of this stamp seem generally, now-a-days, 
to be disposed to favour the attempt to evade or explain away 
this great doctrine, by adopting a kind of Platonic Sabellianism ; 
and employing this as a sort of warrant for using not only the 
ipsissima verba of Scripture, but even a great deal of the 
language which has been commonly approved of by orthodox 
divines, as embodying the substance of what Scripture teaches 
upon this subject. The doctrine of the atonement stands in this 
somewhat peculiar predicament among the great fundamental 
articles of revealed truth, that it was never subjected to a thorough, 
searching, controversial discussion till the time of Socinus. The 
consequence of this is, that, though there is satisfactory evidence 
that it was held in substance by the universal church ever since 
the apostolic age, there is a considerable amount of vagueness and 
indefiniteness, and a considerable deficiency of precise and accu- 
rate statement upon it, in the symbols of the ancient church and 
in the writings of the Fathers ; and that even in the confessions 
of the Reformed churches, — there being no controversy on this 
topic with the Church of Eome, — it is not brought out so fully 
and precisely as most of the other fundamental doctrines of the 
Christian system. These facts have tended somewhat to encourage 
the practice, so common in the present day, of explaining away 
the true doctrine of the atonement, by concealing it in vague and 
indefinite language, under the pretence of repudiating Scripture 
consequences and adhering to the ipsissima verba of revelation. 
The leading presumption, so far as mere human authority is con- 



528 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

cerned, in opposition to these latitudinarian tendencies, is this, — 
that they virtually resolve into a defence of Socinianism ; and 
that Socinus and his followers have been always regarded, both 
by the Church of Rome and by the great body of the Protestant 
churches, as deniers and opposers of the great fundamental prin- 
ciples of the scheme of revealed truth, and as unworthy of the 
designation of Christians. 

The doctrines of Calvinism are, as might be expected, dealt 
with, in this rationalistic and sceptical age, very much in the same 
way as the doctrines of the Trinity and the atonement. It is, 
indeed, only in the Calvinistic system of theology, that the doc- 
trines of the proper divinity and vicarious atonement of Christ, 
and of the agency of the Holy Spirit, are fully developed in their 
practical application. Arminians admit the doctrines of the divinity 
and atonement of Christ, and 'the agency of the Spirit, into their 
system of theology. But they do not fully apply them in some of 
their most important practical bearings and consequences. And, 
more especially, the general principles of their system preclude 
them from admitting the certain and infallible efficacy of these 
great provisions in securing the results which they were intended 
to accomplish. If the eternal and only-begotten Son of God 
assumed human nature into personal union with the divine ; if He 
suffered and died as the surety and substitute of sinners, that He 
might satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God ; and if, as 
one leading result of His mediation, He has brought into operation 
the agency of the third Person of the Godhead in order to com- 
plete the work of saving sinners, — it seems a certain and unavoid- 
able inference, that such stupendous arrangements as these must 
embody a provision for certainly effecting the whole result con- 
templated, whether that result was the salvation of all, or only 
of a portion, of the fallen race of man. Now, the Arminian sys- 
tem of theology not only does not exhibit any provision adequate 
to secure this result, but plainly precludes it ; inasmuch as it is 
quite possible, for anything which that system contains, that the 
whole human race might perish — that no sinner might be saved. 
Arminianism thus tends to depreciate and disparage both the 
work of Christ and the work of the Spirit, in their bearing upon 
the great object they were intended to accomplish, the salvation of 
sinful men. It is only the Calvinistic views of the work of Christ 
and of the Holy Spirit, that are free from the great fundamental 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 529 

objection to which we have referred, of making no adequate pro- 
vision for securing the result intended. 

The Calvinistic doctrines in regard to the work of Christ and 
the agency of the Spirit are thus in beautiful harmony with the 
other departments of that system of theology, — with those doc- 
trines which are commonly regarded as the special peculiarities of 
Calvinism. It is, we are persuaded, in some measure, because of 
the vague and indefinite position in which the other departments 
of the Arminian system require its adherents to leave the subjects 
of the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit, viewed in their 
relation to the practical result contemplated,, that they have been 
able to retain a profession of the divinity and atonement of Christ 
and of the agency of the Spirit, notwithstanding the rationalism 
on which the Arminian system of theology is really based. The 
tendency of Arminianism is to throw the work of the Son and of 
the Spirit in the salvation of sinners into the background, and to 
lead to vagueness and indefiniteness in the statement of the truth 
concerning them ; while in regard to those great doctrines which 
Calvinists and Arminians hold in common, in opposition to the 
Socinians, as well as in regard to the peculiar doctrines of their 
own system, Calvinists hold clear, precise, and definite opinions. 
This, in right reason, ought to be held to be a presumption of 
their truth ; although with many, especially in the present day, it 
is held to furnish a plausible argument against them. Calvinism 
unfolds most fully and explicitly the whole system of doctrine 
revealed in the sacred Scriptures. It brings out most prominently 
and explicitly the sovereign agency of God, the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost, in the salvation of sinners ; while it most 
thoroughly humbles and abases men, as the worthless and helpless 
recipients of the divine mercy and bounty, 

Calvinism thus comes into full and direct collision with all 
the strongest tendencies and prepossessions of ungodly and unre- 
newed men, and has, of course, been assailed with every species 
of objection. It cannot, indeed, with any great plausibility, be 
alleged, that it is founded only on Scripture consequences, — that 
is, inferences or deductions from scriptural statements. For 
Calvinists undertake to produce from Scripture, statements which 
directly and explicitly assert all their leading peculiar doctrines ; 
and if the Calvinistic interpretation of these statements be just 
and well founded, it is plain that their fundamental principles are 

VOL. I. 34 



530 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

directly and explicitly sanctioned by the word of God. The case 
is very different with their opponents. Arminians, of course, 
undertake to show that the statements founded on by Calvinists 
are erroneously interpreted by them ; and that, when rightly 
understood, they furnish no adequate support to Calvinism. But 
they scarcely allege that there are any scriptural statements which 
directly and explicitly either assert Arminianism, or contradict 
Calvinistic doctrines. The defence of Arminianism, and the 
opposition to Calvinism, are based chiefly upon inferences or 
deductions from Scripture statements ; and statements, too, it is 
important to remark, which do not bear directly and immediately 
upon the precise points controverted. The scriptural argument 
for Arminianism and against Calvinism consists chiefly in a proof 
that God is holy, and just, and good ; that He is not the author 
of sin, and is not a respecter of persons ; that men are responsible 
for all their actions, and are justly chargeable with guilt and 
liable to punishment, when they refuse to obey God's law and to 
believe in the Lord Jesus Christ ; and then, in the inference or 
deduction, that the undeniable truth of these views of God and 
man. excludes Calvinism, and establishes Arminianism. This is 
really the substance of the scriptural argument for Arminianism 
and against Calvinism ; while it is scarcely alleged by Arminians 
that there are any scriptural statements which directly and imme- 
diately disprove or exclude the doctrines of Calvinism. On the 
other hand, it is contended by Calvinists that their views are not 
only directly and explicitly asserted in many scriptural statements, 
but are also sanctioned by inferences or deductions from scriptural 
views of the attributes and moral government of God, and of the 
natural condition and capacities of man. 

But though on these grounds, and by these processes, an im- 
pregnable argument can be built up in favour of Calvinism, yet 
it has many formidable difficulties to contend with. The views 
which it unfolds of the attributes and moral government of God, 
of the natural condition and capacities of man, and of the way of 
salvation as regulated and determined by these views of what God 
is and of what man is, are utterly opposed to all the natural 
notions and tendencies of ignorant and irreligious men ; and the 
very clearness, definiteness, and precision with which all these 
views are brought out and applied, are felt by many, especially 
in the present day, as strengthening and aggravating all the ob- 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 531 

jeetions against them. The leading objections against Calvinism, 
though based principally upon inferences or deductions from 
admitted truths, are so obvious as to occur at once to every one, 
whenever the subject is presented to him ; and they are possessed 
of very considerable plausibility. They are just in substance 
those which the Apostle Paul plainly gives us to understand 
would certainly, and as a matter of course, be directed against 
the doctrine which he taught. The apostle had laid down and 
established the great principle, " It is not of him that willeth, nor 
of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy/' — " He 
hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth." 
He then assumes that, as a matter of course, this principle would 
be objected to, — that men's natural notions would rise up in re- 
bellion against it. " Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He 
yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?" * — which is just, 
in plain terms, alleging that the apostle's doctrine made God the 
author of sin, and destroyed man's responsibility. And the apostle, 
in dealing in the following verses with this objection, makes no 
attempt to explain away the doctrine which he had laid down, or 
to back out of it ; he does not withdraw or qualify the outspoken 
Calvinism which he had so plainly enunciated, and substitute for 
it the smooth and plausible Arminianism, which would at once 
have completely removed all appearance of ground for the objec- 
tion. On the contrary, he, without qualification or hesitation, 
adheres to the doctrine he had stated; and disposes of the objec- 
tion just as Calvinists — following his example — have always done, 
by resolving the whole matter into the unsearchable perfections 
and the sovereign supremacy of God, and the natural ignorance, 
helplessness, and worthlessness of man. 

The whole substance of what has been, or can be, plausibly 
alleged against Calvinism, is contained in the objection which the 
apostle expected to be adduced against the doctrine he taught ; 
and the whole substance of what is necessary for defending Cal- 
vinism, is contained in, or suggested by, the way in which he dis- 
posed of the objection. But the subject has given rise in every 
age to a great deal of ingenious and elaborate speculation ; and 
this speculation has been frequently of a very unwarranted, pre- 
sumptuous, and even offensive description, — the presumption and 



* Rom. ix. 19. 



532 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

offensiveness being principally, though we admit not exclusively, 
exhibited on the side of the Arminians. We do not intend to 
enter upon a general discussion of the great leading objections 
which have been adduced against the Calvinistic system of theo- 
logy, and of the way and manner in which these objections should 
be dealt with and disposed of. We have already indicated briefly 
the leading considerations which should be brought to bear upon 
this subject, and which, when expounded and applied, are quite 
sufficient to dispose of all the plausible — and, at first sight, appa- 
rently formidable — objections that are commonly adduced against 
Calvinism ; and thus to show that the whole of the strong, posi- 
tive evidence in support of it — founded both on direct and express 
statements of Scripture, bearing immediately upon the points con- 
troverted, and also on clear and satisfactory inferences or deduc- 
tions from the great general principles unfolded there, concerning 
God and man, the work of the Son and the Spirit, and the way 
of salvation — stands untouched and unimpaired, and ought to 
command the assent and consent of our understandings and our 
hearts. We mean to confine ourselves, in a great measure, to 
a consideration of some misapprehensions which have been put 
forth in the present day in regard to the practical application of 
Calvinism; and to an attempt to show that these misapprehensions 
arise from partial, defective, and erroneous conceptions on this 
whole subject. 

There is only one topic connected with the more speculative 
aspects of the question, on which we wish to make some observa- 
tions, viz. the connection between election and reprobation, — as 
it is often called, — and the use which the Arminians commonly 
attempt to make in controversial discussion of the latter of these 
doctrines. We had occasion formerly to censure the course of 
procedure usually adopted by the Arminians in this matter. But 
we think it deserving of somewhat further discussion, as this 
will afford us an opportunity of exposing a very unfair, but very 
plausible, controversial artifice, which we fear has done much 
injury to what we believe to be the cause of God and truth. 

It is the common practice of theologians — though there are 
some diversities in this respect — to employ the word predestina- 
tion as comprehending the whole of God's decrees or purposes, 
His resolutions or determinations, with respect to the ultimate 
destiny, the eternal condition, of mankind ; and to regard elec- 



Essay X.] . PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 533 

tion and reprobation as two divisions of the subject, falling under 
the general head of predestination, and exhausting it. Election 
comprehends the decrees or purposes of God in regard to those 
of the human race who are ultimately saved ; while reprobation is 
commonly used as a general designation of His decrees or pur- 
poses in regard to those men who finally perish. It is admitted 
by Arminians as well as Calvinists that God decreed or resolved 
from eternity to do whatever He does or effects in time ; and con- 
versely, that whatever He does in time, He from eternity decreed 
or resolved to do. This is not, on the part of the Arminians, any- 
thing tantamount to an admission of the great fundamental prin- 
ciple of Calvinism, — viz. that " God from all eternity did, by the 
most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchange- 
ably ordain whatsoever comes to pass ;"* for they hold that many 
things come to pass, — such as the actions of free and morally 
responsible beings, — of which God is not the author or cause. 
These things, Arminians allege, God does not do or effect ; and 
consequently He did not from eternity resolve to do or effect 
them. But whatever God really does or effects in time, — whatever 
comes to pass by His agency, so that He is to be regarded as the 
author or efficient cause of it, — they admit that He must be re- 
garded as having from eternity decreed or resolved to do or effect. 
It is important to remember that intelligent Arminians concede 
this general principle ; for it is very common among the lower 
class of Arminian writers to talk as if there was some special and 
peculiar difficulty in the eternity of the divine decrees or purposes, 
beyond and in addition to what is involved in the execution of 
them in time. But this is a mere fallacy, intended to make an 
impression upon the minds of unreflecting men. It cannot be 
disputed, that whatever God does or effects in time, He from 
eternity decreed or resolved to do or effect ; and there is plainly 
no greater or additional difficulty, no deeper or more inexplicable 
mystery, attaching to the eternal purpose to do a thing — to effect 
a result, — than to the actual doing or effecting of it in time. If 
God does or effects anything in time, — such as the production of 
faith and repentance in the heart of a moral and responsible 
being, — there can be no greater difficulty, so far as concerns either 
the character of God or the capacities of men, in His having 



Confession, c. ill. s. 



534 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

resolved from eternity to effect this result. Whatever God 
really does in time, He not only may, but He must, from eternity 
have resolved or determined to do. 

Arminians do not deny this general principle ; but they are 
commonly disposed to throw it into the background, or at least 
to abstain from giving it prominence ; partly in order to leave 
room for appealing to men's feelings, as if there was something 
specially harsh and repulsive in the eternity of the decree as 
distinguished from the execution of it in time, — and partly to 
keep out of sight the compound or duplicate evidence which 
Calvinists can produce from Scripture in support of their leading 
doctrines, by the legitimate application of this principle of the 
certain and necessary identity of the purpose and the execution of 
it. Whatever indications are given us in Scripture, as to what 
God decreed or purposed in regard either to those who are saved 
or those who perish, go equally to establish what it is that He 
does in time in regard to these two classes respectively ; and 
whatever information is given us as to what He does in time with 
reference to the salvation of men individually, equally indicates 
what we must regard Him as having from eternity determined to 
do. And thus the scriptural evidence bearing upon both of these 
topics goes equally, and with combined force, to establish one 
great general conclusion, which is just the fundamental principle 
of the Calvinistic system of theology. But this by the way, — for 
we are not at present attempting a general discussion of pre- 
destination. We have adverted to this topic chiefly for the 
purpose of reminding our readers, that the words election and 
reprobation may be used, correctly enough, as general designa- 
tions, either of what God purposed from eternity to do, or of 
what He does in time, in relation to the saved and the lost respec- 
tively ; and that, so far as our present object is concerned, it is 
not necessary to have respect to this distinction between the 
eternal purpose and the execution of it. 

Election, then, may be regarded as descriptive generally of 
what God purposed from eternity and does in time, in regard to 
the salvation of those who are saved; and reprobation as descrip- 
tive of what He purposed and does in regard to the fate of those 
who ultimately perish. And as those who are saved and those 
who perish comprehend all the individuals of the human race, it 
is evident, from the nature of the case, that election and reproba- 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 535 

tion must stand in a very close and intimate mutual relation ; so 
that, if we have full and accurate conceptions of the one, we must 
thereby necessarily also know something of the other. Election, 
taken in this wide and general sense, is evidently a. subject of 
much greater practical importance than reprobation ; and, accord- 
ingly, there is much fuller and more direct information given us 
about it in Scripture. There is a great deal told us there about 
God's purposes and procedure with respect to those who are 
saved ; and there is very little, comparatively, told us about God's 
purposes and procedure with respect to those who perish. We 
have, indeed, full information supplied to us, as to what it is that 
men must do to be saved, — as to what is required of them that 
they may escape God's wrath and curse due to them for their 
sins ; and we are assured that those to whom this information is 
communicated, and who fail to improve it for their own salvation, 
are themselves responsible for the fearful result. This informa- 
tion is of the last importance, and it is fully furnished to us in 
Scripture. But beyond this there is little told us in regard to 
those who perish, — very little, especially, in regard to any purposes 
or actings of God bearing upon their ultimate destiny as indi- 
viduals. We have much information given us in Scripture about 
God's purposes and actings in regard to those who are saved. 
We are told plainly of His eternal choice or selection of them for 
salvation, out of the human race all equally sunk in guilt and 
depravity ; of His absolute, unconditional determination to save 
these persons so chosen or selected, in accordance with the pro- 
visions of a great scheme, which secures the glory of the divine 
character, the honour of the divine law, and the interests of 
personal holiness ; and of the execution of this decree — the 
accomplishment of this purpose — by giving to these persons, or 
effecting in them, faith and regeneration, with all their appro- 
priate results, by watching over them with special care after 
these great changes have been effected, by upholding and preserv- 
ing them in the exercise of faith and in the practice of holiness, 
and by preparing them fully for the inheritance of the saints in 
light. By the application of these principles, we are able to give 
a full account of the great leading features and events in the 
history of every soul that is saved, from the eternal sovereign 
purpose of God to save that soul till its final admission to glory. 
Calvinists contend that all these principles are set forth very 



536 CALVINISM AND ITS I [Essay X. 

directly and explicitly in the statements of Scripture ; and in 
this state of things, common sense and common fairness plainly 
dictate, that the first thing to be done is to investigate and ascer- 
tain whether or not Scripture sanctions them ; and if the result 
of the inquiry be a conviction that it does, to receive them as true 
and certain, along with all that is involved in, or results from 
them. Arminians, of course, deny that Scripture sanctions these 
principles, and endeavour to show the insufficiency of the grounds 
on which scriptural support is claimed for them. But they often 
prefer to conduct the discussion in a different way. They are 
usually anxious to give priority and prominence to the subject of 
reprobation ; and having refuted, as they think, the Calvinistic 
doctrine upon this subject, they then draw the inference or de- 
duction, that since election and reprobation are correlatives, and 
necessarily imply each other, the disproof of reprobation involves 
a disproof of election. Their reasons for adopting this line of 
policy in conducting the discussion are abundantly obvious, and 
somewhat tempting, but very far from being satisfactory or credit- 
able. The Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation admits more easily 
of being distorted and perverted by misrepresentation than the 
doctrine of election ; and of this facility many Arminians have not 
scrupled to avail themselves. The awful and mysterious subject 
of reprobation can likewise be easily presented in lights which 
make it appear harsh and repulsive to men's natural feelings; and 
this is one main reason why Arminians are so fond of dwelling 
upon it, and labouring to give it great prominence in the discus- 
sion of this whole matter. The injustice and unfairness of this 
mode of dealing with the question is established by the considera- 
tion already adverted to, — viz. that there is much fuller and more 
explicit information given us in Scripture on the subject of elec- 
tion than of reprobation. If this be so, then it is plainly the 
dictate of common sense and common fairness, that we should 
investigate the evidence of the doctrine of election before we pro- 
ceed to consider that of reprobation ; and that we should not 
allow the conclusions we may have reached, upon satisfactory 
evidence, with respect to the subject that is more clearly revealed, 
to be disturbed by difficulties with respect to a subject which God 
has left shrouded in somewhat greater mystery. 

Calvinists not only admit, but contend, that both as to their 
import and meaning, and as to their proof or evidence, the doc- 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 537 

trines of election and reprobation are closely connected with each 
other ; and that inferences or deductions with respect to the one 
may be legitimately and conclusively derived from the other. In 
the nature of the case, God's purposes and procedure in regard to 
those who are saved must affect or regulate His purposes and pro- 
cedure in regard to those who perish ; and the knowledge of the 
one must throw some light upon the other. Calvinists have always 
maintained that the whole of what they believe and teach upon 
the subject of reprobation may be deduced, by undeniable logical 
inference, from the doctrine which they hold to be clearly taught in 
Scripture on the subject of election ; and that it is also confirmed 
by the more vague and imperfect information given us in Scripture, 
bearing directly upon the subject of the fate of those who perish. 
No intelligent Calvinist has ever disputed the position, that elec- 
tion necessarily implies and leads to a corresponding reprobation. 
No Calvinists, indeed, have ever disputed this; except some of the 
weaker brethren among the evangelical churchmen in England, 
who have professed to believe in Calvinistic election as plainly set 
forth in their 17th Article, but who have declined to admit the 
doctrine of reprobation in any sense. We can sympathize with 
the feeling which leads men to shrink from giving prominence to 
this awful and mysterious subject, and even with the feeling which, 
led to the omission of any formal deliverance regarding it, both in 
the Articles of the Church of England and in the original Scotch 
Confession of 1560, though both prepared by Calvinists. But 
there is no reason why men, in their investigation of divine truth, 
should not ascertain and state, and when necessary maintain and 
defend, the whole of what is contained in, or may be deduced 
from, Scripture on this as on other subjects. 

Arminians, for controversial purposes, have frequently given 
great and undue prominence to this subject of reprobation ; and 
some Calvinists, provoked by this unfair and discreditable pro- 
cedure, have been occasionally tempted to follow their opponents 
into a minuteness and rashness of speculation that was painful and 
unbecoming. But Calvinists in general, while not shrinking from 
the discussion of this subject, have never shown any desire to 
enlarge upon it, beyond what was rendered necessary by the im- 
portunity of their opponents; and have usually conducted the dis- 
cussion under the influence of a sense of the imperative obligation 
to keep strictly within the limits of what is revealed, and to carry 



538 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X, 

on the whole investigation under a deep feeling of reverence and 
holy awe. Very different have been the spirit and conduct of 
many Arminians in dealing with this mysterious subject. They 
often shrink from meeting fairly and manfully the great mass of 
direct and positive evidence which can be produced from Scripture 
in support of the Calvinistic doctrine of election. They prefer to 
assail it indirectly by an attack upon ijie doctrine of reprobation ; 
and they adopt this course because, as we have said, there is much 
less information given us in Scripture about reprobation than elec- 
tion, and because it is easier to distort and misrepresent the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine upon the one subject than the other, and to excite 
a prejudice against it. No man of ordinary candour will deny, 
that a great deal of evidence, which is at least very plausible, has 
been produced from statements contained in Scripture, in support 
of the Calvinistic- doctrine of election. And if this be so, Cal- 
vinists are entitled to insist, that men who profess to be seeking 
the truth, and not merely contending for victory, shall, in the first 
place, deal with this direct and positive evidence, and dispose of it, 
by either admitting or disproving its validity ; and shall not, in the 
first insta?ice, have recourse to any indirect, inferential, and cir- 
cuitous process for deciding the point at issue. But this mode of 
procedure, though plainly demanded by sound logic and an honest 
love of truth, is one which Arminians rather dislike and avoid ; 
and hence the anxiety they have often shown to give priority and 
prominence to the subject of reprobation, and to attempt to settle 
the whole question about predestination by inferences deduced 
from it. 

When the Remonstrants or Arminians were cited before the 
Synod of Dort, they insisted that, under the first article, which 
treated of predestination in general, the discussion should begin 
with an investigation of the doctrine of reprobation ; and when the 
Synod, upon the obvious grounds of sound logic, common sense, 
and ordinary fairness, to which we have referred, — and which are 
fully set forth in the Judgments of the different Colleges of the 
Foreign Divines, embodied in the Acts of the Synod,* — refused to 
concede this demand, the Arminians loudly complained of this as 
an act of great hardship and injustice. The excuse they gave for 
making this demand was this : that the difficulties which they had 



* Pp. 139-151. 



Essay X.] 



PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 



539 



been led to entertain in regard to the truth of the system of doc- 
trine generally received in the Reformed churches, were chiefly 
connected with the subject of reprobation ; and that if this point 
could be cleared up to their satisfaction, there might be some hope 
of the two parties coming to an agreement. But this, besides being 
a mere pretence, was, upon the grounds which we have already 
adduced, plainly untenable upon any right basis of argument. It 
is conclusively answered by the fair application of the considera- 
tions, — that there is much fuller and clearer information given us 
in Scripture about election than about reprobation ; that Oalvinists 
really hold nothing on the subject of reprobation but what is vir- 
tually contained in, and necessarily deducible from, what is plainly 
taught in Scripture on the subject of election ; and that the scrip- 
tural evidence for the doctrine of reprobation is, mainly and prin- 
cipally, though not exclusively, to be found in the scriptural proof 
of the doctrine of election, — that is, in the fair and legitimate 
application of the views revealed to us as to what God has pur- 
posed and does with respect to those who are saved, to the investi- 
gation of the question as to what He has purposed and does, or 
rather has not purposed and does not do, with respect to those who 
perish. 

This unreasonable, unfair, and discreditable mode of procedure, 
adopted by Episcopius and his associates at the Synod of Dort, has 
been often since exhibited by Arminian controversialists, at least 
practically and in substance ; though perhaps it has not been so 
explicitly stated, and so openly defended, as upon that occasion. 
We may refer to two or three instances of this. 

The first work that appeared in England containing a formal 
and elaborate attack upon the Calvinistic system of theology, was 
published anonymously in 1633.* Its author was Samuel Hoard, 



* The work entitled Apello Evan- 
gelium ; or, An Appeal to the Gospel, 
by John Plaifere (who must not be 
confounded with Thomas Playfere, 
Davenant's predecessor as Margaret 
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge 
and a Calvinist), seems to have been 
written before Hoard's book, in 1628 
or 1629, though it was not published 
till 1652, many years after the author's 
death. Plaifere's Appeal is also a 
formal and elaborate attack upon Cal- 



vinism, and is, upon the whole, an 
abler and a fairer book than Hoard's. 
It contains the earliest attempt with 
which we are acquainted to distort 
the meaning of the 17th Article of the 
Church of England to an Arminian 
sense, a topic with which Hoard did 
not venture to meddle. Plaifere's 
Appeal was republished in a collec- 
tion of " Tracts concerning Predesti- 
nation and Providence." Cambridge, 
1719. 



540 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

rector of Moreton, and its title was, " God's Love to Mankind 
manifested by disproving His Absolute Decree for their Damna- 
tion." And in accordance with this title, the work just consists of 
an attack upon the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation, grossly dis- 
torted and misrepresented ; without an attempt to answer the great 
mass of direct and positive proof, which Calvinists have produced 
from Scripture, in support of their doctrine of election. This 
work of Hoard's had the honour of being formally answered by 
three great theologians, — Davenant, Twisse, and Amyraut, — the 
diversity of whose views upon some points, while they agreed in 
the main, gave, perhaps, to the discussion as a whole, additional 
interest and value. Davenant' s answer to Hoard was published in 
1641, and is entitled, " Animadversions written by the Right Rev. 
Father in Gocl, John, Lord Bishop of Salisbury, upon a Treatise 
entitled, ' God's Love to Mankind.'" Amyraut' s answer to Hoard 
was also published in 1641, and is entitled, " Doctrinse J. Calvini 
de Absolute Reprobationis Decreto Defensio." Hoard's work had 
been translated into Latin, and published at Amsterdam, under the 
auspices of Grotius. Amyraut, who had incurred the suspicion of 
orthodox divines, by advocating — in his treatise on predestination, 
published in 1634 — the doctrine of universal redemption, seized 
this opportunity of showing that he zealously maintained the fun- 
damental principles of the Calvinistic system of theology, by pre- 
paring and publishing a reply to this work, in defence of the 
doctrine of Calvin. Twisse's reply to Hoard,, though written 
before any of the other answers, and, indeed, principally before 
the publication of Hoard's work, which had been sent to him in 
manuscript, was not published till some years after its author's 
death. It is entitled, " The Riches of God's Love unto the Ves- 
sels of Mercy consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation 
of the Vessels of Wrath." It was published in 1653, and was 
licensed and recommended by Dr Owen, at that time Vice- 
Chancellor of Oxford. The first sentence of Owen's prefatory 
recommendation of Twisse's work is admirably pertinent to our 
purpose, and, indeed, brings out the only point with which we 
have at present to do in connection with this matter. It is this: — 

" Of all those weighty parcels of gospel truth which the Arminians have 
chosen to oppose, there is not any about which they so much delight to try 
and exercise the strength of fleshly reasonings, as that of God's eternal decree 
of reprobation ; partly, because the Scripture doth not so abound in the de- 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 541 

livery of this doctrine, as of some others lying in a more immediate subser- 
viency to the obedience and consolation of the saints (though it be sufficiently 
revealed in them to the quieting of their spirits who have learned to captivate 
their understandings to the obedience of faith), — and partly, because they 
apprehend the truth thereof to be more exposed to the riotous oppositions of 
men's tumultuating, carnal affections, whose help and assistance they by all 
means court and solicit in their contests against it." 

These three replies to Hoard rank among the most important 
and valuable works in this department of controversial theology. 
But at present we have to do with them only in this respect, that 
they all fully expose the erroneous and distorted account which 
Hoard gives of what it is that Calvinists really hold upon the sub- 
ject of reprobation, and bring out the absurdity and unfairness of 
giving so much prominence to this topic in discussing the general 
question of predestination, — instead of beginning with the much 
more important subject of election, about which we have much 
fuller information given us in Scripture ; and then, when the 
doctrine of Scripture upon the subject of election has been inves- 
tigated and ascertained, proceeding to apply this, in connection 
with the fewer and obscurer intimations given us directly con- 
cerning reprobation, in determining what we ought to believe 
regarding it. We may give two or three extracts on these points 
from Davenant, whom — notwithstanding his somewhat unsound 
views as to the extent of the atonement — we consider one of the 
greatest divines the Church of England has ever produced. He 
thus points out the unfairness of the title, and of the general 
scope and object, of Hoard's work, while admitting — as, of course, 
every intelligent theologian must do — that the election of some 
men necessarily implies a corresponding reprobation of the rest ; 
and indicating, at the same time, the true use and application 
that should be made of the fact, that the 17th Article of the 
Church of England, though explicitly asserting the Calvinistic 
doctrine of election, makes no direct mention of reprobation. 

" '. . . Obliquely to oppose the eternal, free, and absolute decree of 
predestination or election, under colour of disapproving an absolute decree for 
any man's damnation, bentteth not any divine who acknowledgeth the truth 
of that doctrine which the Scriptures have delivered, St Augustine cleared, 
and the Church of England established in the 17th Article. But if the 
author of this treatise had no other aim than the overthrowing of such an 
eternal decree of predestination and preterition, as is fondly supposed will 
save men whether they repent or not repent, believe or not believe, persevere 



542 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

or not persevere ; and such an absolute decree of reprobation as will damn 
men, though they should repent and believe, or will hinder any man from 
repenting or believing, or will cause and work any man's impenitency or 
infidelity ; we both wish, and shall endeavour together with him, to root such 
erroneous fancies out of all Christian minds."* 

" The title of the book justly rejecteth an absolute decree for the damna- 
tion of any particular person : for such a decree was never enacted in God's 
eternal counsel, nor ever published in His revealed word. But for absolute 
reprobation, — if by this word be understood only that pretention, non-elec- 
tion, or negative decree of predestination, which is contradictorily opposed to 
the decree of election, — the one is as absolute as the other, and neither de- 
pendeth upon the foreseen difference of men's actions, but upon the absolute 
will of God. For if God from eternity absolutely elected some unto the 
infallible attainment of grace and glory, we cannot but grant that those who 
are not comprised within this absolute decree are as absolutely passed by, as 
the other are chosen. The decree of damnation, therefore, must not be con- 
founded with the decree of negative predestination, which (according to the 
phrase of the school rather than of the Scripture) is usually termed reproba- 
tion. By which term of reprobation some understand only the denial of 
election or predestination. And because the negation is to be measured by 
the affirmation, unless we be agreed what is meant when we say, Peter was 
predestinated before the foundations of tlie world were laid, we can never rightly 
judge what is meant when, on the contrary, we avouch, Judas was reprobated 
before the foundations of the world were laid. Some others, under the name 
of reprobation, involve not only the negative decree of preparing such effec- 
tual grace as would bring them most certainly unto glory, but an affirmative 
decree also for the punishing of men eternally in hell-fire. 

" So far forth as this author seemeth to oppose the absolute decree of pre- 
destination, and the absolute decree of negative reprobation or non-election, 
reducing them to the contrary foreseen conditions of good or bad acts in men, 
he crosseth the received doctrine of the Church of England. But if he intend 
only to prove that the adjudication of men unto eternal life or eternal death, 
and the temporal introduction of men into the kingdom of heaven, or casting 
of men into the torments of hell, are always accompanied with the divine 
prescience or intuition of contrary acts or qualities in those which are to be 
saved or condemned, we hold it and acknowledge it a most certain truth. 
Yet we must here add, that predestination and preterition are eternal acts 
immanent in God the Creator, whereas salvation and damnation are temporal 
effects terminated unto the creature : and therefore the latter may be sus- 
pended upon many conditions, though the former be in God never so absolute. 
"The treatise ensuing would have had much more perspicuity if the author 
had briefly and plainly set down what he understandeth by this word predes- 
tination or election, and whether he conceive it to be an absolute or a condi- 



P. 2. 



Essat X.] PKACTTCAL APPLICATION. 543 

tional decree. If conditional, he should have showed us with whom God 
conditioned, upon what terms, and where the conditions stand upon record. 
If he grant absolute predestination, his plea for conditionate pretention will 
be to little purpose, with those who understand that the absolute election of 
such a certain number doth in eodem signo rationis as absolutely imply a 
certain number of men not elected. 

" The wisdom of our Church of England in the 17th Article layeth down 
the doctrine of predestination, and doth not so much as in one word meddle 
with the point of reprobation ; leaving men to conceive that the one is the 
bare negation or denial of that special favour and benefit which is freely 
intended and mercifully bestowed in the other. Would to God the children 
of this church had imitated the wisdom of their mother, and had not taken a 
quite contrary course, baulking the doctrine of predestination, and breaking 
in abruptly upon the doctrine of reprobation. 

" I know not whether I should think him more defective who, in disputing 
about reprobation, runneth out into impertinent vagaries, or him that under- 
taketh the handling of this question without premising and opening the true 
nature of predestination. 

" And no man need fear but (with all that are judicious, religious, and 
loving their own salvation) that manner of handling this controversy will be 
best accepted, which so reduceth man's sin and damnation to himself, as 
withal it forgetteth not to reduce his justification, sanctification, glorification, 
not to any foreseen goodness springing out of man's free-will, but to the free 
mercy of God, according to His eternal purpose effectually working in men 
those gifts and acts of grace which are the means to bring them unto glory."* 
" If striving to lie close be a probable argument of a bad cause, those who 
are afraid to deal with the more lightsome part of this controversy which con- 
cerneth election and predestination, and thrust themselves, without borrowing 
any light from this, into the other (which, taken by itself, is much more dark 
and obscure), are the men who strive to wrap themselves and others in an 
obscure and 'dark cloud. Our Church of England was more willing and 
desirous to set down expressly the doctrine of absolute predestination, I mean 
of predestination causing faith and perseverance, than it was of absolute 
negative reprobation, I mean of such reprobation as implieth in God a will of 
permitting some men's final impiety and impenitency, and of justly ordaining 
them unto punishment for the same : and yet the latter doth plainly folloAv 
upon the truth of the former. It was wisdom, and not Jewish or Turkish 
fear, which made our church so clear in the article for absolute predestina- 
tion, and yet so reserved in the other ; easily perceiving that predestination 
of some men cannot be affirmed, but non-predestination or pretention or 
negative reprobation (call it as you please) of some others must needs therewith 
be understood. 

' ' Though truth be best uncovered, yet all truths are not of the same nature, 

* Pp. 4-7. 



544 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X- 

nor alike profitable to be debated upon : yet for the truth of absolute repro- 
bation, so far forth as it is connected and conjoined with absolute predestina- 
tion, when the main intent of the Eemonstrants is by opposing of the former 
to overthrow the latter, it importeth those who have subscribed to the 17th 
Article not to suffer it to be obliquely undermined."* 

" The opinion here aimed at is the doctrine of absolute reprobation, con- 
cerning which all disputes are frivolous, if it be not first agreed upon what is 
understood by these two words, absolute reprobation. 

" For the understanding whereof, observe first, what our church conceiveth 
under the term of predestination. If a decree of God first beholding and fore- 
seeing certain particular persons as believing and constantly persevering unto 
the end in faith and godliness, and thereupon electing them unto eternal 
happiness, then we will grant that the Eemonstrants (whom this author fol- 
loweth) embrace the doctrine of the Church of England. But if, in our 17th 
Article, God in His eternal predestination beholdeth all men as lying in massa 
corrupta, and decreeth out of this generality of mankind, being all in a like 
damnable condition, to elect some by His secret counsel, to deliver them from 
the curse and damnation by a special calling according to His eternal purpose, 
and by working in them faith and perseverance ; then it is plain that the 
Eemonstrants and this author have left the doctrine of the Church of England 
in the point of predestination, and therefore may well be suspected also in the 
point of reprobation, which must have its true measure taken from that other. 

" Secondly, take notice, what the word absolute importeth when it is 
applied unto the eternal and immanent acts or decrees of the divine predesti- 
nation. Not (as the Eemonstrants continually mistake it) a peremptory decree 
of saving persons elected, whether they believe or not believe, nor yet a decree 
of forcing or necessitating predestinate persons unto the acts of believing, 
repenting, persevering, or walking in the way which leadeth unto everlasting 
life ; but a gracious and absolute decree of bestowing as well faith, repentance, 
and perseverance, as eternal life, upon all those to whom, in His everlasting 
purpose, He vouchsafed the special benefit of predestination. And that God 
can and doth according to His eternal purpose infallibly work faith and per- 
severance in the elect, without any coaction or necessitation of man's will, is 
agreed upon by all catholic divines, and was never opposed but by Pelagius. 
And this absolute intending of eternal life to persons elected, and absolute 
intending of giving unto such the special grace of a perseverant faith, is that 
absolute predestination which our mother the church hath commended unto 
us, and which we must defend against the error of the semi-Pelagians and 
Eemonstrants, who strive to bring in a predestination or election wherein God 
seeth faith and perseverance in certain men going before predestination, and 
doth not prepare it for them in eternity by His special act of predestination, 
nor bestow it upon them in due time, as a consequent effect of His eternal 
predestination. 

* Pp. 54-56. 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 545 

" Thirdly, it is to be observed, that our church, in not speaking one word 
of reprobation in the Article, would have us to be more sparing in discussing 
this point than that other of election ; quite contrary to the humour of the 
Remonstrants, who hang back when they are called to dispute upon predesti- 
nation, but will by no authority be beat off from rushing at the first dash 
upon the point of reprobation. 

" But further, from hence we may well collect, that our church, which by 
predestination understandeth a special benefit out of God's mercy and absolute 
freedom, absolutely prepared from all eternity, and in time bestowed infallibly 
upon the elect, would have us conceive no further of the silenced decree of 
reprobation, than the not preparing of such effectual grace, the not decreeing 
of such persons unto the infallible attainment of glory, the decreeing to per- 
mit them through their own default deservedly and infallibly to procure their 
own misery. All this is no more than God himself hath avouched of himself, 
• miserebor cui voluero, et clemens ero in quern mihi placuerit.' And that 
which the apostle attributeth unto God.* 

" Fourthly, this non-predestinatio, non-electio, prseteritio or negativa re- 
probatio (for by all these names divines speak of it), doth as absolutely leave 
some out of the number of the predestinate, as predestination doth include 
others within the same number. And the number of both, formally and mate- 
rially, is so certain, that the diminution or augmentation of either is, by the 
general consent of orthodox divines, condemned for an erroneous opinion : 
though the semi-Pelagians spurned against this truth. If, under the name of 
absolute predestination, any conceive a violent decree of God thrusting men 
into a state of grace and glory, and under the name of absolute reprobation, a 
violent decree of God thrusting men into sin and misery, let who will confute 
them : for their opinion is erroneous concerning the one, and blasphemous con- 
cerning the other. But under colour of opposing such imaginary decrees, to 
bring in a conditionate predestination, to exclude this negative reprobation, 
to settle them both upon provision of human acts, is opposite to the doctrine 
of St Augustine, approved anciently by the catholic church, and till this 
new-fangled age, generally and commonly allowed and embraced both by the 
Romanists and by the Protestants." f 

Arminians, in more modern times, have not been slow to fol- 
low the example set them by their predecessors, in the mode of 
dealing with this subject. Whitby, in his Discourse on the Five 
Points, — which, though not a work of any great ability, was for 
a century, and until superseded by Tomline's " Refutation of Cal- 
vinism," the great oracle and text-book of the anti-evangelical 
Arminians of the Church of England, — devotes the two first 
chapters to the subject of reprobation. But perhaps the folly 
and unfairness of the Arminian mode of dealing with this sub- 



* Exod. xxxiii. 19 ; Rom. ix. 15, 16, 17, 18. f Pp. 126, 130. 

VOL. I. 35 



546 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

ject, may be regarded as having reached its acme in John Wes- 
ley's treatise, entitled, "Predestination calmly considered," which 
was published about the middle of last century, and is contained 
in the tenth volume of the collected edition of his works. Wesley, 
in this treatise, begins with proving — what no intelligent Calvinist 
disputes — that the election of some men to everlasting life, neces- 
sarily implies what may be called a reprobation of the rest ; or, as 
he expresses it, that " unconditional election cannot appear without 
the cloven foot of reprobation." # And having established this, 
he straightway commences an elaborate and violent attack upon 
reprobation, which he describes as "that millstone which hangs 
about the neck of your whole hypothesis,"! without attempting to 
grapple with the direct positive scriptural evidence, by which the 
doctrine of unconditional election has been established. Dr Gill, 
in an excellent reply to this treatise, entitled, " The Doctrine of 
Predestination stated," truly describes it in this way : — " Though 
he calls his pamphlet l Predestination calmly considered,' yet it 
only considers one part of it, reprobation ; and that not in a way 
of argument but harangue, not taking notice of our argument 
from Scripture or reason, only making some cavilling exceptions 
to it." % Wesley, indeed, is so engrossed and excited by reproba- 
tion, that he calls out, in a sort of frenzy, " Find out any election 
which does not imply reprobation, and I will gladly agree to it. 
But reprobation I can never agree to, while I believe the Scripture 
to be of God." § This mode of contemplating and dealing with 
the subject is manifestly inconsistent with sound reason and an 
honest love of truth. The first duty incumbent upon Wesley, 
and upon all men, in this matter, was just to " find out " what 
Scripture taught upon the subject of election, to receive its 
teaching upon that point with implicit submission, and to follow 
out the doctrine thus ascertained to all its legitimate consequences. 
He tells us, indeed, that he could not find the Galvinistic doctrine 
of election in Scripture ; but he has not explained to us how he 
managed to dispose of the direct positive evidence usually adduced 
from Scripture in support of it. And we venture to think that if 
he had examined Scripture with due impartiality, without allow- 
ing himself to be scared by the bugbear of what he calls " the 
cloven foot of reprobation," he would have found, as Calvinists 



* P. 209. f P. 255. % P. 22. § P. 211. 



Essay X.] PKACTICAL APPLICATION. 547 

have done, this election to be taught there, — viz., that God from 
eternity, out of the good pleasure of His own will, elected some 
men, absolutely and unconditionally, to everlasting life ; and that, 
in the execution of this purpose, He invariably and infallibly be- 
stows upon these men that faith, regeneration, and perseverance, 
which He alone can bestow, and without which they cannot be 
saved. We admit that this election necessarily implies a corre- 
sponding reprobation ; but we really believe nothing more upon 
the subject of reprobation than what the election plainly taught 
in Scripture necessarily implies, — viz. this, that God passes by 
the rest of men, the non-elect, and leaves them in their natural 
state of guilt and depravity, withholding from them, or de facto 
not conferring upon them, that special grace, which, as He of 
course well knows, is necessary to the production of faith and re- 
generation ; and doing this, as well as ultimately punishing them 
for their sin, in accordance with a decree or purpose which He had 
formed from eternity. We find in Scripture an election which 
necessarily implies this reprobation ; and therefore we believe 
both upon the testimony of God. We do not consider ourselves 
at liberty to agree to "any election," as Wesley says, but what we 
find taught in Scripture ; and we regard ourselves as bound to 
agree to this election because taught there, even though it neces- 
sarily involves all that we believe on the subject of reprobation. 

But we have said enough, we think, to show the unreason- 
ableness and unfairness of the course frequently pursued by the 
Arminians, in labouring to excite a prejudice against the doctrine 
of election, by giving priority and prominence to the discussion of 
reprobation ; and to enforce the obligation of the duty plainly 
imposed by logic, common sense, and candour, to deal in the first 
place, deliberately and impartially, with the mass of direct and 
positive. scriptural evidence which Calvinists adduce in support of 
their doctrine of election, — without being prepossessed or pre- 
judiced by any inferences or deductions that may be drawn from 
it, whether warrantably or the reverse, or by any collateral and 
extraneous considerations, Without pretending to discuss this 
subject, we would like, before leaving it, to make a few explana- 
tory remarks, in the way of guarding against misapprehensions 
and misrepresentations of the doctrine generally held by Calvinists 
regarding it. 

The sum and substance of what Calvinists believe upon the 



548 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

subject is this, that God decreed or purposed from eternity to do 
what He actually does in time, in regard to those who perish as 
well as in regard to those who are saved ; and that this is in sub- 
stance withholding from them, or abstaining from communicating 
to them, those gracious and insuperable influences of His Spirit, 
by which alone faith and regeneration can be produced, leaving 
them in their natural state of sin and misery, and then at last in- 
flicting upon them the punishment which by their sin they have 
deserved. In stating and discussing the question about reproba- 
tion, Oalvinistic divines are careful, as may be seen in the extracts 
quoted above from Davenant, to distinguish between two different 
acts, decreed or resolved on by God from eternity and executed 
by Him in time ; the one negative and the other positive, — the 
one sovereign and the other judicial, — and both frequently com- 
prehended under the general name of reprobation. The first of 
these, the negative or sovereign, — which is commonly called non- 
election, preterition, or passing by, — is simply resolving to leave 
(and in consequence leaving) some men, those not chosen to ever- 
lasting life, in their natural state of sin and misery, — to withhold 
from them, or to abstain from conferring upon them, those super- 
natural gracious influences which are necessary to enable any man 
to repent and believe ; so that the result is, that they continue in 
their sin, with the guilt of all their transgressions upon their head. 
The second act — the positive or judicial — is more properly that 
which is called in the Westminster Confession of Faith, " fore- 
ordaining to everlasting death," and " ordaining" those who have 
been passed by " to dishonour and wrath for their sin." God 
ordains no men to wrath or punishment except on account of their 
sin; and makes no decree, forms no purpose, to subject any to 
punishment, but what has reference to, and is founded on, their 
sin, as a thing certain and contemplated. But the first or negative 
act of non-election — preterition, or passing by — may be said to 
be absolute, since it is not founded on sin, and perseverance in it, 
as foreseen. Sin foreseen cannot be the proper ground or cause 
why some men are elected and others are passed by, for all men 
are sinners, and were foreseen as such. It cannot be alleged 
that those who were not elected, and who are passed by in the 
communication of special supernatural grace, have always been 
greater sinners than those who have been chosen and brought to 
eternal life. And with respect to the idea which might naturally 



Essay X.] PEACTICAL APPLICATION. 549 

suggest itself, — viz. that final impenitence, or unbelief foreseen 
might be the ground or cause, not only of the positive or judicial 
act of foreordination to punishment and misery, but also of the 
negative act of pretention, — this Calvinists hold to be inconsistent 
with the scriptural statements which so plainly ascribe the pro- 
duction of faith and regeneration, and of perseverance in faith 
and holiness, wherever they are produced, solely to the good 
pleasure of God and the efficacious operation of His Spirit, 
viewed in connection with the undoubted truth that He could, 
if He had chosen, have as easily produced the same results in 
others; and inconsistent likewise with the intimations plainly 
given us in Scripture, that there is something in God's purposes 
and procedure, even in regard to those who perish, which can be 
resolved only into His own good pleasure, into the most wise and 
holy counsel of His will. 

The leading objections against the Calvinistic doctrine of 
reprobation are founded upon misapprehensions and misrepresen- 
tations of its real import and bearings. The objections usually 
adduced against it are chiefly these; that it implies, 1st, That 
God created many men in order that He might at last consign 
them to everlasting misery ; and 2d, That His decree of reproba- 
tion, or His eternal purpose concerning those who perish, is the 
proper cause or source of the sin and unbelief, on account of 
which they are ultimately condemned to destruction. Now Cal- 
vinists do not teach these doctrines, but repudiate and abjure them. 
They maintain that these doctrines cannot be shown to be fairly 
involved in anything which they do teach upon this subject. The 
answer to both these objections is mainly based upon the views 
we hold with respect to the original state and condition of man at 
his creation, and the sin and misery into which he afterwards fell. 
God made man upright, after His own image, in knowledge, 
righteousness, and holiness, — fitted and designed to glorify and 
enjoy his Maker; and this brings out the only true and proper 
end for which man was created. Calvinists have always not 
only admitted but contended, that there are important differences 
between the relation in which the divine foresight of the unbelief 
and impenitence of those who perish stands to the decree of 
reprobation, and that in which the foresight of the faith and 
perseverance of those who are saved stands to the decree of elec- 
tion ; and between the way and manner in which these two decrees 



550 



CALVINISM AND ITS 



[Essay X. 



operate in the production of the means by which they are executed, 
means which may be said to consist substantially in the character 
and actions of their respective objects. We cannot dwell upon 
these differences. It is sufficient to say, that while Calvinists 
maintain that the decree of election is the cause or source of faith, 
holiness, and perseverance, in all in whom they are produced ; 
they hold that the pretention of some men — that is, the first or 
negative act in the decree of reprobation, based upon God's good 
pleasure, the counsel of His will — puts nothing in men, causes or 
effects no change in them, but simply leaves them as it found 
them, in the state of guilt and depravity to which they had fallen ; 
while they admit that the second or positive part of the decree 
of reprobation, the foreordination to wrath and misery, as distin- 
guished from pretention, is founded upon the foresight of men's 
continuance in sin. God, in the purpose and act of pretention, 
took from them nothing which they had, withheld from them 
nothing to which they had a claim, exerted upon them no influ- 
ence to constrain them to continue in sin, or to prevent them 
from repenting and believing ; and in further appointing them to 
dishonour and wrath for their sin, He was not resolving to inflict 
upon them anything but what He foresaw that they would then 
have fully merited.* 

The considerations which have now been hinted at are amply 
sufficient, when expounded and applied, as they have been by 



* We do not remember to have 
read in any Calvinistic author a more 
precise, comprehensive, and yet com- 
pendious statement of the differences 
between election and reprobation, than 
is to be found in the " Medulla Theo- 
logica" of William Ames, or, as he is 
commonly called in Latin, Amesius. 
Ames was one of the acutest controver- 
sialists and ablest divines of the seven- 
teenth century. He was an English 
Puritan, was driven into exile because 
of his nonconformity, and became 
professor of divinity at Franeker. 
He has, in his various works, made 
most valuable contributions to the 
Popish, Puritan, and Arminian con- 
troversies. He thus states the views 
generally held by Calvinists as to the 
differences between election and re- 



probation, embodying the chief points 
on which the answers to the Arminian 
objections to reprobation are based : 
" Hinc prima imparitas rationis inter 
electionem et reprobationem ; in elec- 
tione enim finis ration em habet non 
tantum Dei gratia gloriosa, sed etiam 
hominum ipsorum salus ; in reproba- 
tione vero damnatio in sese non habet 
rationem finis aut boni (the only end, 
properly so called, being, as the con- 
text explains, the manifestation of the 
divine justice). In eo nihilominus 
secunda imparitas est rationis inter 
electionem et reprobationem, quod 
electionis amor bonum creaturse com- 
municat immediate, sed reprobationis 
odium bonum tantum negat, non in- 
fert aut infligit malum, nisi merito 
creaturse intercedente. In isto actu 



Essay X.J 



PEACTICAL APPLICATION. 



551 



Calvinistic divines, to answer the objections of the Arminians, — 
that is, the special objections which they usually adduce against 
the doctrine of reprobation, as distinguished from the more general 
objections commonly directed against the Calvinistic system of 
theology as a whole ; and to expose the injustice and unfairness 
of the misrepresentations which they often give of our sentiments, 
that they may give greater plausibility to their objections. 

We have stated that we do not mean to enter into the con- 
sideration of any of the great leading objections against Calvinism, 
based upon its alleged inconsistency with the moral attributes of 
God and the responsibility of man ; or of the more abstract theo- 
retical speculations which have been brought to bear upon the inves- 
tigation of this subject. We propose to consider only some of the 
misapprehensions that have been put forth, and some of the difficul- 
ties that have been started, in regard to its practical application. 

There is one general form of misrepresentation which Armi- 
nians often employ in dealing with the doctrines of Calvinism. 
It is exhibited in the practice of taking a part of our doctrine, 
disjoined from the rest, representing it as the whole of what we 
teach upon the point ; and then showing, that thus viewed it is 
liable to serious objections and leads to injurious consequences. 
It is by a process of this sort that they give plausibility to their 
very common and favourite allegation, that the Calvinistic doc- 
trine of predestination discourages or renders unnecessary the use 
of means, the employment of efforts for the attainment of ends, 



tertia est imparitas rationis inter 
electionem et reprobationem quod 
electio est causa non tantum salutis, 
sed et omnium eorum quae causae 
rationem habent ad salutem, repro- 
batio vero neque damnationis, neque 
peccati quod meretur damnationem, 
est proprie causa, sed antecedens tan- 
tum. Hinc etiam sequitur quarta 
disparitas, quod ipsa media non habent 
semper inter se rationem causae et 
effectus, permissio enim peccati non 
est causa derelictionis, obdurationis, 
punitionis, sed ipsum peccatum." 
(Medulla Theologica, lib. i. c. xxv., 
De Predestinatione, pp. 109-110.) 

Mastricht, one of the best of the 
great systematic divines of the seven- 
teenth century, has very closely fol- 



lowed, or rather has copied, in his 
discussion of this subject, these state- 
ments of Ames (Theoretico-practica 
Theologia, lib. iii. c. iv. s. 6, p. 
304). 

Those whj wish to follow out the 
investigation of this subject, will find 
abundant materials in the following 
works, in addition to those which have 
already been mentioned : — Turretine, 
Theologia Elenctica, loc. iv. qu. xiv. 
sect. 1-17 ; Pictet, La Theologie 
Chretienne, liv.-viii. c. vi. ; De Moor, 
Comment, in Marck, Comp. c. vii. 
sect. 29, torn. ii. p. 96 ; Gill's Cause 
of God and Truth, part iii. c. i. ii. ; 
Jonathan Edwards' Remarks on Im- 
portant Theological Controversies, c. 
iii. sect. 35. . 



552 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

which we may be under an obligation to aim at, or influenced by 
a desire to effect, — that it tends to discourage or preclude the 
steady pursuit of holiness, the conscientious discharge of duty, 
and the diligent improvement of the means of grace. Now this 
common allegation is possessed of plausibility, only if it be assumed 
as the doctrine of Calvinists, that God has foreordained the 
end without having also foreordained the means ; and when their 
true and real doctrine upon the subject is brought out in all its 
extent and completeness, the plausibility of the objection entirely 
disappears. 

The doctrine of the Westminster Confession upon this point is 
this, — that by God's decree ordaining from eternity whatsoever 
cometh to pass, the liberty or contingency of second causes is not 
taken away but rather established ; * and that " although in rela- 
tion to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all 
things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same 
providence He ordereth them to fall out according to the nature 
of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently;"! — 
that is, necessary things — things necessary from the nature or 
constitution which He has conferred on them, or the laws which 
He has prescribed to them — He ordereth to fall out, or take place, 
necessarily, or in accordance with their constitution and laws ; 
and in like manner, He ordereth free things, as men's actions, to 
fall out or take place freely, and contingent things contingently, 
according to their respective natures and proper regulating prin- 
ciples. The Confession also teaches, with more special reference 
to men's eternal destinies, " that as God hath appointed the elect 
unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of 
His will, foreordained all the means thereunto." J And these 
means, of course, comprehend their faith, conversion, sanctifica- 
tion, and perseverance, — means indispensably necessary in every 
instance to the attainment of the end. Now, this doctrine of the 
foreordination of the means as well as the end — a foreordination 
which not only leaves unimpaired to second causes the operation 
of their own proper nature, constitution, and laws, but preserves 
and secures them in the possession and exercise of all these — is 
not only quite consistent with the Calvinistic scheme of doctrine, 
but forms a necessary and indispensable part of it. No doctrine 



* C. iii. s. 1. f C. v. s. 2. % C. iii. s. 6. 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 553 

does or can establish so firmly as this the actual invariable connec- 
tion between the means and the end ; and no doctrine is fitted to pre- 
serve in the minds of men so deep a sense of the reality and certainty 
of this connection. No Calvinist who understands the doctrine he 
professes to believe, and who takes it in and applies it in all its 
extent, can be in any danger of neglecting the use of means, 
which he knows to be fittepl, in their own nature or by God's 
appointment, as means, for the attainment of an end which he 
desires to have accomplished ; because he must see, that to act in 
this way is practically to deny a part of the truth which he pro- 
fesses to hold, — that is, to deny that God has foreordained the 
means as well as the end, and has thus established a certain and 
invariable connection between them. Calvinists are in danger of 
being tempted to act upon this principle, only when they cherish 
defective and erroneous views of. the doctrines which they profess 
to believe ; and in like manner it is only from the same defective 
and erroneous views of the true nature and the full import and 
bearing of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, that Armi- 
nians are led to charge it with a tendency to lead men to neglect 
or disregard the use of appropriate or prescribed means, in order 
to the attainment of ends. 

All this is quite clear and certain, and it is perfectly conclu- 
sive as an answer to the objection we are considering. But how 
do the Arminians deal with this answer to their objection ? They 
commonly just shut their eyes to the answer, or disregard or evade 
it, and continue to repeat the objection, as if it had not been, 
and could not be, answered. A very remarkable and honourable 
exception to this common policy of Arminians in dealing with 
this matter, has occurred in the present day in the case of Arch- 
bishop Whately. He has admitted that the word election, as used 
in Scripture, relates in most instances " to an arbitrary, irrespec- 
tive, unconditional decree;" and he has also admitted that the 
arguments commonly directed against Calvinism, from its alleged 
inconsistency with the moral attributes of God, ought to be set 
aside as invalid ; inasmuch as, in reality and substance, they are 
directed 'against facts or results, which undoubtedly occur under 
God's moral government, and must therefore be equally dealt 
with and disposed of by all parties. He has made a concession 
equally important to us, and equally honourable to him, upon the 
point which we are at present considering. He has distinctly ad- 



554 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

mitted that the common allegation of the Arminians — that the 
Calvinistic doctrine of predestination overturns the necessity of 
means and efforts, and thereby tends to lead to a sinful, or to a 
careless and inactive, life — is unfounded; and is, indeed, disproved 
by the application which all intelligent Calvinists make of this 
essential part of their general doctrine — viz. that God has fore- 
ordained the means as well as the end, and has thereby established 
and secured a certain and invariable connection between them. 
He has, indeed, coupled this admission with the allegation that, 
by the very same process of argument and exposition by which, 
as he concedes, Calvinism can be vindicated from the charge of 
having an immoral or injurious tendency, by discouraging the 
conscientious discharge of duty and the diligent improvement of 
means, it can be shown that it admits of no practical application 
whatever, but is a mere barren, useless speculation. This allega- 
tion we propose now to consider, and we hope to be able to show 
that it is founded upon misconception and fallacy. But before 
doing so, it may be proper to give a specimen or two of the way 
in which the topic we have been considering is dealt with by 
Arminians who have less sagacity and candour than Dr Whately. 
We shall take our specimens from men who have sounder and 
more evangelical views of some of the fundamental principles of 
Christian theology than he has, and from whom, therefore, better 
things might have been expected, — John Wesley, the founder of 
the Methodists ; and Richard Watson, perhaps the ablest and most 
accomplished theologian that important and useful body has yet 
produced. 

Wesley, . certainly, Was not a great theologian, and in that 
character is not entitled to much deference. His treatise on 
" Original Sin," in reply to Dr John Taylor, is perhaps his best 
theological work, — and it is a respectable specimen of doctrinal ex- 
position and discussion. Most of his other theological productions 
are characterized by inadequate information, and by hasty, super- 
ficial thinking ; and these qualities were most conspicuously mani- 
fested when he was dealing with the doctrines of Calvinism. His 
leading objections to Calvinism he was accustomed to put, com- 
pendiously and popularly, in this form — " The sum of all this is 
this : One in twenty, suppose, of mankind are elected ; nineteen 
in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what they 
will ; the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can." 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 555 

The first part of this statement about the comparative number 
of the elect and the reprobate, the saved and the lost, though not 
very closely related to the subject at present under consideration, 
may be adverted to in passing, as suggesting a topic which Armi- 
nians often adduce in order to excite a prejudice against Calvinism, 
though it is really altogether irrelevant. A dogmatic assertion as 
to the comparative numbers of those of the human race who are 
saved, and of those who perish in the ultimate result of things, 
certainly forms no part of Calvinism. There is nothing to pre- 
vent Calvinists, as such, from believing that, as the result of 
Christ's mediation, a great majority of the descendants of Adam 
shall be saved ; nothing that should require them to deny salva- 
tion to any to whom Arminians could consistently concede it. 
The actual result of salvation in the case of a portion of the 
human race, and of destruction in the case of the rest, is the same 
in both systems, though they differ in the exposition of the prin- 
ciples according to which the result is regulated and brought 
about. In surveying the past history of the world, or in looking 
around on those who now occupy the earth, with the view of 
forming a sort of estimate of the fate that has overtaken, or that 
yet awaits, the generations of their fellow-men, Calvinists intro- 
duce no other principle, and apply no other standard, than just 
the will of God plainly revealed in His word as to ivhat those 
things are which accompany salvation ; and consequently, if in 
doing so, they should form a different estimate as to the compara- 
tive result from what Arminians would admit, this could not arise 
from anything peculiar to them as holding Calvinistic doctrines, 
but only from their having formed and applied a higher standard 
of the personal character, that is, of the holiness and morality, 
which are necessary to prepare men for admission to heaven, than 
the Arminians are willing to countenance. And yet it is very 
common to represent Calvinistic doctrines as leading, or tending* 
to lead, those who hold them, to consign to everlasting misery a 
large portion of the human race whom the Arminians would admit 
to the enjoyment of heaven. 

Neither is there anything in Calvinism necessarily requiring 
or implying a more unfavourable view than Arminianism exhibits, 
of the ultimate destiny of those of the human race who die in 
infancy, without having given any palpable manifestation of 'moral 
character. Calvinists believe that no one of the descendants of 



555 



CALVINISM AND ITS 



[Essay X. 



Adam is saved, unless he has been chosen of God in Christ before 
the foundation of the world, redeemed with Christ's precious 
blood, and regenerated by the almighty agency of the Holy Spirit. 
And while all Calvinists hold that many infants, baptized and un- 
baptized, are saved in this way, there is nothing in their Calvinism 
to prevent them from believing, that all who die in infancy may 
have been elected, and may be saved through Christ. They are 
not, indeed, so bold and dogmatic as their opponents, in pro- 
nouncing what is or what is not consistent with the divine charac- 
ter in this matter. They are more fully alive to the fair influence 
of the consideration, that this subject is, from its very nature, an 
inscrutable mystery, and that very little light is thrown upon it by 
any information given us in Scripture. Upon these grounds, Cal- 
vinists have thought it right to abstain from dogmatic deliver- 
ances upon this subject ; but many of them have been of opinion 
that there are indications in Scripture, though not very clear or 
explicit, which favour the idea, that all dying in infancy are 
elected and saved, and there is nothing in their Calvinism to pre- 
vent them from believing this.* 

But this topic is only incidental to the statement of Wesley, 
which we proposed to consider. The main point of it is, that he 
asserts that the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination necessarily 
implies " that the elect shall be saved, do what they will, and the 
reprobate shall be damned, do what they can." Toplady published 
an excellent exposure of this offensive misrepresentation, based, 
of course, upon the principle which we have been explaining, that 
the means have been ordained as well as the end. Wesley at- 
tempted to defend himself in a small tract called " The Conse- 



* Wesley is very fond of harping 
upon this string, but he occasionally 
introduces some variations, by altering 
his numbers. This was pointed out 
by Toplady in his answer to " The 
Consequence Proved." " Observe, 
reader, how suddenly Mr Wesley's po- 
lemical weather-glass rises and falls. 
In his printed letter to the late truly 
reverend and amiable Mr Hervey, he 
charged that incomparable man and 
the Calvinistic party in general, with 
holding the reprobation of ' nine out 
of ten,' In March 1770, we were 



charged with holding as above, that 
' nineteen in twenty are reprobated.' 
In February 1771, we were charged 
withholding the reprobation of ' forty- 
nine out of fifty.' And about five 
months after, the glass is sunk 30 de- 
grees lower, and in ' The Consequence 
Proved ' stands again at ' nineteen out 
of twenty.' Next spring I suppose it 
will rise to ninety-nine out of a hun- 
dred." — (Toplady's "More Work for 
Mr Wesley." Works, edition 1825, 
vol. v. p. 364.) 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 557 

quence Proved," contained in his collected works.* In this tract 
he undertakes to show that the sentence we quoted from him in 
introducing this topic " is a fair state of the case, this consequence 
does naturally and necessarily follow from the doctrine of absolute 
predestination." His defence of himself just consists of a proof, 
which of course was very easy, that the Oalvinistic doctrine im- 
plies, that the end in both cases was foreordained, and therefore 
infallibly certain, — of an assertion, that from this principle " the 
whole consequence follows clear as the noonday sun,"f — and of 
an attempt to excite odium against the doctrine of reprobation, 
by alleging that it necessarily produced or implied a putting forth 
of God's agency in the actual production of depravity and unbe- 
lief in those who perish. He does not venture to look even at the 
principle, that the means are foreordained as well as the end, or 
attempt to show the inconclusiveness of this principle as an answer- 
to his allegation. He simply repeats his allegation with increased 
audacity, and asserts that the " consequence follows clear as the 
noonday sun." It is true that, in regard to the elect, the end is 
in each case foreordained, and of course their salvation is infallibly 
secured. But it is also true that this is only a part of our doc- 
trine, — that we hold also that the means are foreordained and 
secured as well as the end, — and that these means, as God has 
plainly declared, and as all men, Calvinists as well as others, 
admit and believe, are faith in Christ, repentance unto life, holi- 
ness, and perseverance. God has just as fully and certainly pro- 
vided for securing these means, as for securing the ultimate end 
of salvation, in regard to every one of the elect ; and has made 
provision for all this in a way fully accordant with the nature 
of the subject, — viz. man as he is, with all his capacities and in- 
capacities as they are. To suppose that any elect person should, 
in fact, continue till the end of his life in a state of ungodliness 
and unbelief, is to suppose an impossibility. Our opponents have 
no right to make this supposition, because our doctrine, when 
fully apprehended and fairly applied, not only does not admit of 
it, but positively and infallibly precludes it, — that is, demonstrates 
and establishes its impossibility. It is true that all who are elected 
to eternal life shall certainly be saved. But it is also true, and it 
is equally a part of our doctrine, that all who are elected to eternal 



Third Edition, vol. x. p. 370. f P, 372. 



558 



CALVINISM AND ITS 



[Essay X. 



life shall certainly repent and believe, and shall certainly enter on, 
and persevere in, a course of new obedience. We can thus hold, 
and in entire consistency with all our peculiar principles, that no 
man shall be saved unless he repent and believe, and unless he 
persevere to the end in faith and holiness. And in this way it is 
manifest that — notwithstanding the truth of the doctrine, that all 
the elect shall infallibly be saved, and in perfect consistency with 
it — all the obligations incumbent upon men to believe and to per- 
severe in faith and holiness, — of whatever kind these obligations 
may be, and from whatever source they may arise, — and the 
consequent obligations to use all the means which, according to 
God's revealed arrangements, may contribute to the production 
of these intermediate results, continue, to say the least, wholly 
unimpaired. 

The same principles apply, mutatis mutandis, to the case of 
the reprobate, though here, as we have explained, the subject is 
involved in deeper and more inscrutable mystery, and the in- 
formation given us in Scripture is much less full and explicit ; 
considerations which have generally led Oalvinists to treat of it 
with brevity, caution, and reverence, while they have too often 
tempted Arminians to enlarge upon it presumptuously and offen- 
sively. We have already explained that Calvinists repudiate the 
representation which Wesley here gives of their doctrine of re- 
probation, as implying that God's agency is the proper cause or 
source of the depravity and unbelief, on account of which the 
reprobate are finally consigned to misery.* They deny that they 
hold this, and that anything they do hold can be proved neces- 
sarily to involve this consequence. Calvinists believe that men in 
their natural state of guilt and depravity are not able, by their 
own strength, to repent and believe ; and that God bestows only 
on the elect, and not on the reprobate, that special supernatural 
grace which is necessary, in every instance, to the production of 
faith, holiness, and perseverance. They admit that they cannot 



* Ames lias put, with admirable 
brevity and terseness, the substance 
of the views of Calvinists upon this 
subject, with a rejection of the lead- 
ing Arminian misrepresentations, in 
this way : — "De reprobatione nos non 
sumus admodum solliciti nisi quatenus 
consequitur ex electione. Positiva 



autem reprobatio ad exitium sine con- 
sideratione ullius inobedientise non 
sequitur ex electionis doctrina. Neque 
de numero reproborum aliucl inde se- 
quitur, quam omnes illos qui tandem 
incurrunt damnationem seternam, fu- 
isse ab seterno reprobatos." — (Amesii 
Anti Synodalia Scripta, p. 37.) 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 559 

give a full and adequate explanation of the consistency of these 
doctrines, with men's undoubted and admitted responsibility for 
their character and destiny. The doctrines of men's inability in 
their natural condition to repent and believe, and of the non- 
bestowal upon all men of the supernatural grace which is necessary 
to enable them to do so, are just statements of matters of fact as 
to what man is, and as to what God does, and can be fully 
proved to be true and real both from Scripture and observation ; 
and it is not a sufficient reason for rejecting these doctrines or 
facts, which can be satisfactorily established by their appropriate 
evidence, that we cannot fully explain how they are to be recon- 
ciled with the doctrine or fact of man's responsibility. All that is 
logically incumbent upon us in these circumstances is just to prove, 
that the alleged inconsistency cannot be clearly and conclusively 
established ; and this Calvinists undertake to do. And this being 
assumed, all that is further necessary in order to answer the Ar- 
minian objection, — as directed even against this most profound 
and mysterious department of the subject, — is to show, as can be 
easily done upon the principles already explained, that while men 
are responsible for not repenting and believing, there is nothing in 
our Calvinistic principles which precludes us from maintaining 
that every man who repents and believes shall certainly be saved. 

So far then from Wesley's assertion, that the Calvinistic doc- 
trine of predestination necessarily implies that " the elect shall be 
saved, do what they will, and the reprobate shall be damned, do 
what they can," giving "a fair state of the case," it is evident that 
we can maintain, in full consistency with all our peculiar prin- 
ciples, that no man shall be saved unless he repent and believe, 
and persevere to the end in faith and holiness ; and that every 
man who does so shall certainly be admitted to the enjoyment of 
eternal life. 

The other instance we have to adduce, of an evasion of the 
fair application of the doctrine, that the means are foreordained as 
well as the end, is connected, not with predestination, as bearing 
upon the eternal destinies of man, but with the wider subject of 
the foreordination of all events, — of " whatsoever cometh to pass ;" 
— and it is taken from Richard Watson, the great theologian of 
the Wesleyan Methodists. It occurs in a review, contained in the 
seventh volume of the collected edition of his works, of a volume 
of sermons by Dr Chalmers, published originally under the title 



560 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

"Sermons preached in St John's Church, Glasgow." This volume 
of sermons contains a masterly discourse upon Acts xxvii. 31, 
" Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, Except these abide 
in the ship, ye cannot be saved;" and Mr Watson's review is 
chiefly occupied with an attempt to answer it. Dr Chalmers' 
discourse is virtually an exposition and defence of the Calvinistic 
doctrine, that God hath unchangeably foreordained whatsoever 
comes to pass. It is based upon the assumption that the ultimate 
result in this matter, viz. the preservation of the whole ship's 
company, had been absolutely predicted and promised by God to 
the apostle, and, of course, was infallibly and infrustrably certain; 
and it is mainly occupied with an exposition of the grounds which 
bring out the consistency of the absolute certainty of the result 
with the conditionality, contingency, or uncertainty which may 
seem to be implied in the apostle's statement, that this result could 
not be effected, unless another event, dependent apparently upon 
the free agency of responsible beings, viz. the continuance of the 
crew in the ship, had previously taken place. The apparent in- 
consistency of the absoluteness and unconditionality of the final 
result — decreed, predicted, promised — with the seeming contin- 
gency or uncertainty of the intermediate step — the continuance of 
the crew in the ship — is explained, of course, by the application of 
the principle, that God had foreordained the means as well as the 
end ; had foreordained, and made provision for certainly effecting 
or bringing about, the continuance of the crew in the ship, as well 
as the ultimate preservation of all who were on board. There was 
then no strict and proper conditionality — no real and ultimate 
contingency or uncertainty — attaching to this intermediate event. 
It was, equally with the ultimate result, comprehended in God's 
plan or purpose ; and equally certain provision, adapted to the 
nature of the case and the position and relations of all the parties 
concerned, had been made for securing that it should come to 
pass. The hypothetical or conditional statement of the apostle 
does not necessarily imply more than this, that an indissoluble 
connection had been established, and did really subsist, between 
the two events, the one as a means and the other as an end. If 
this connection really subsisted in God's purpose and plan, then 
the apostle's hypothetical statement was true ; while it did not 
imply or assume real or actual uncertainty as attaching to either 
event, and was indeed fitted and intended, in accordance with the 



Essay X.] PEACTICAL APPLICATION. 561 

natural and appropriate operation of second causes, to contribute 
to bring about the result which God had resolved should come to 
pass. The whole history then of this matter, and all the different 
statements put on record regarding it, are fully explained by the 
doctrine, that the means are foreordained as well as the end ; while 
in their turn they confirm and illustrate that doctrine, and con- 
firm and illustrate also the principle formerly explained, which 
may be regarded as an expansion and application of that doc- 
trine, — viz. that " although in relation to the foreknowledge and 
decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably 
and infallibly, yet by the same providence He ordereth them to 
fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, 
freely, or contingently." 

The apostle's hypothetical or conditional statement here is to 
be explained and defended in the very same way as such statements 
as these, — " Except ye repent, ye shall perish ; " "Whosoever be- 
lieveth shall be saved." These statements are virtually hypo- 
thetical or conditional in their form ; they assert an invariable 
connection between the means and the end, and the existence of 
this connection is sufficient to show that they are true and war- 
rantable. The statements being thus true and warrantable in 
themselves, are fitted to lead men who desire the end to adopt 
the means without which it cannot be attained ; while they are 
not in the least inconsistent with the doctrine — resting upon its 
own proper scriptural grounds — that God alone can produce faith 
and repentance, and that He certainly and infallibly bestows them 
on all whom He hath chosen to salvation. 

This is the substance of the common Calvinistic argument; 
and it is brought out by Dr Chalmers in this sermon in a very 
powerful and impressive way. How is it met by Mr Watson ? 
He first of all tries to throw doubt upon the import and bearing 
of God's declaration to the apostle, of His purpose or resolution 
to save the lives of all who were in the ship. He says,* " The 
declaration was not that of a purpose, in the sense of a decree, at 
all, but of a promise." But this is really nothing better than a 
quibble. God had said to the apostle, " There shall be no loss of 
any man's life among you, but of the ship." This was both a 
purpose and a promise, — it was the one just as much as the other ; 



* Yol. vii. p. 246. 
VOL. I. 36 



562 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

and it might also be regarded as a prediction, for a prediction is 
just a revelation of a purpose which God has formed in regard to 
a thing yet future. The words plainly import a declaration of an 
absolute and unconditional purpose of God, — an explicit prediction 
and promise of a definite event as certainly future, as infallibly 
and inevitably to take place. And this is so clear and certain, 
that it must be taken as a fixed principle in the interpretation of 
the whole narrative. Nothing must be admitted which contradicts 
this ; and everything must, if possible, be so explained as to accord 
with it. Mr Watson ventures to say, that the history shows that 
the apostle did not understand this as an absolute purpose on 
God's part ; for, " if he had, there was no motive to induce him 
to oppose the going away of the mariners in the boat." This is 
a melancholy specimen of what able and upright men are some- 
times tempted to do by the exigencies of controversy. That the 
apostle believed, upon God's authority, that it was His absolute, 
irrevocable, and infrustrable purpose, that there was to be no loss 
of life, is made as clear and certain as words can make anything. 
He had also been told, upon the same infallible authority, that it 
was a part of God's plan that the crew were to continue in the 
ship ; not as if this were a condition on which the ultimate result 
was really and properly suspended, but as an intermediate step, 
through means of which that result was to be brought about. He 
knew that this mean had been foreordained as well as that end ; 
and that thus a necessary connection had been established de facto 
between them. This is all that is necessarily implied in this hypo- 
thetical statement, " Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be 
saved ; " and he was guided to put the matter in this form, because 
this was the provision best fitted in itself, and was also fore- 
ordained in God's purpose, for bringing about this intermediate 
event as a mean, and thereby effecting the end. Mr Watson 
holds that the continuance of the crew in the ship was a condition 
on which the result of the preservation of the lives of all was, 
strictly and properly speaking, suspended ; and infers from this 
that there was no absolute purpose to save them. That there was 
an absolute purpose to save them, is, to say the least, much more 
clear and certain than that there was any condition, strictly and 
properly so called, upon which the accomplishment of the result 
was suspended. And, independently of this, his argument is a 
mere quibble on the meaning of the word condition. He just 






Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 563 

asserts, over and over again, that an absolute purpose is an uncon- 
ditional purpose ; assumes that a condition is something on which 
the result purposed or contemplated is really suspended; and then 
infers that, wherever there is a condition attached, there can be 
no absolute purpose. This is his whole argument; and it is really 
nothing better than a quibble, combined with a resolute determi- 
nation to refuse to look at the explanations and arguments which 
Calvinists have brought forward in expounding and defending 
their views upon this subject. 

Calvinists admit that the terms " absolute " and " conditional," 
as applied to the divine decrees, are contradictory, or exclusive 
the one of the other ; and that absolute and unconditional, in this 
application of them, are synonymous. But they deny that there 
are any divine decrees or purposes, or any predictions or promises, 
which can, in strict propriety of speech, be called conditional; 
while they admit that there are senses in which the word " condi- 
tion" may be loosely and improperly applied to them. There are 
few words, indeed, which admit of, and have been employed in, 
a greater variety of senses and applications, than the word " con- 
dition." So much is this the case, that Dr Owen, in treating of 
the subject of the alleged conditions of justification, lays it down, 
as a sort of canon or axiom, " We cannot obtain a determinate 
sense of this word condition, but from a particular declaration of 
what is intended by it wherever it is used."* Accordingly, the 
exposition of the ambiguity of this word "condition," with an 
exact specification of the different senses in which it may be and 
has been employed, — in relation to the divine purposes, predictions, 
and promises, — forms one of the best known and most important 
commonplaces in this controversy, and has been fully and largely 
handled by all the leading Calvinistic divines. But all this Mr 
Watson resolutely ignores. He just assumes that a condition is 
a condition, as if it had only one meaning or signification ; and as 
the apostle's statement plainly implies, that in some sense or other 
the continuance of the crew in the ship might be called a condi- 
tion of the result of saving the lives of all, and as Calvinists admit 
this, he infers that, as an absolute and a conditional purpose are 
contradictories, God could not have formed and declared an abso- 
lute purpose in the matter ; and that, of course, notwithstanding 

* " On Justification," c. iii. p. 156, Original Edition. 



564 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

anything which He had either foreordained or foreseen, the crew 
might have succeeded in their purpose of leaving the ship, and 
thus have frustrated the purpose, and prevented the result, which 
the apostle, speaking in God's name, had absolutely and uncondi- 
tionally predicted. Calvinists do not deny that there is a loose 
and improper sense in which the continuance of the crew in the 
ship might be called a condition of the saving of the lives of all 
on board ; inasmuch as it was God's purpose or plan that the one 
event should precede, and be a mean of bringing about, the other, 
— an indissoluble connection being thus established and secured 
between them. But they deny that the one was a condition of 
the other, in the strict and proper sense of that word. To re- 
present it as a condition, strictly and properly so called, implies not 
merely that the ultimate result was suspended upon it, — for this, 
in a sense, might be said to be true, in virtue of the connection 
de facto established between them as means and end, — but also, 
that God could not make, or at least had not made, any certain 
and effectual provision for bringing it about; so that the first 
event, and of course the second also, was left in a position of 
absolute contingency or uncertainty, dependent for its coming into 
existence upon causes or influences over which God could not, or 
at least did not, exert any effectual control. It is only when the 
word "condition" is taken in this, its strict and proper sense, that 
an absolute and a conditional purpose are contradictories ; and 
in this sense Calvinists deny that a conditional purpose was ever 
formed in the divine mind, or was ever embodied in a divine 
prediction or promise. There are no conditions, properly so 
called, attaching to the divine purposes, predictions, and promises. 
God has, absolutely and unconditionally, foreordained certain ends 
or ultimate results ; and He has, with equal absoluteness and un- 
conditionality,' foreordained the means — that is, the intermediate 
steps or stages — by which they are to be brought about. And the 
conditional or hypothetical form in which predictions and pro- 
mises are often put in Scripture, simply implies the existence of a 
de facto connection, or interdependence of events, as means and 
end; and is intended to operate upon men's minds in the way 
of bringing about the accomplishment of ends, by leading to the 
use and improvement of the natural, ordinary, and appropriate 
means. 

Mr Watson refers to the great principle by which we answer 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 565 

the Arminian objection about the practical application of the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine of predestination, — viz. that God has foreordained 
the means as well as the end ; but he does so merely for the pur- 
pose of throwing it aside as irrelevant and fallacious. He does 
not venture to look it fairly in the face, or to realize its true im- 
port and bearing. He does not even attempt to point out either 
its fallacy or its irrelevancy. He disposes of it just by repeating 
his favourite axiom, — which is really the sum and substance of all 
that he has been able to produce upon this important department 
of the argument, — " It follows, if the predestination be absolute, 
that there are no conditions at all,"* — a position which we can 
admit to be true as it stands, but the ambiguity and futility of 
which, in its bearing upon this branch of the controversy, we 
think we have sufficiently established. 

The discussions in which we have been engaged may serve to 
illustrate the unfairness often practised by Arminians in basing 
their objections upon defective and erroneous notions of the real 
doctrines of Calvinism ; and may be useful, also, in reminding 
Calvinists of the importance, with a view at once to the defence 
of truth against opponents, and the personal application of it in 
their own case, of seeking to form full and comprehensive views 
of the whole system of Christian doctrine, and of its different 
parts in all their bearings and relations. 

The misrepresentations and evasions which we have pointed 
out in Wesley and Watson, are fair specimens of what is to be 
found in the generality of Arminian writers, in treating of this 
subject ; and it is surely not wonderful that the penetration and 
sagacity of Archbishop Whately — though himself an Arminian 
— should have enabled him to perceive, and that his candour and 
courage should have led him to proclaim, the folly and futility of 
all this. He has, as we have explained, distinctly and fully ad- 
mitted that the doctrine that God has foreordained the means as 
well as the end, and has thereby established a certain and indis- 
soluble connection between them, as expounded and applied by 
Calvinistic divines, furnishes a conclusive answer to the common 
allegation, that Calvinism is injurious in its moral bearing and 
tendency, by leading men to neglect the discharge of duties and 
the use and improvement of means. The Calvinistic argument, 



* P. 249. 



566 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

indeed, upon this point, is so clear and conclusive, that the wonder 
is not that Whately should have admitted it to be satisfactory, 
but that Wesley, Watson, and Arminians in general should have 
denied it. The admission, however, is not the less honourable to 
Whately' s sagacity and candour ; because, so far as we remember, 
he was the first Arminian who fully and openly made this im- 
portant concession. If we could have believed that Whately's 
example, on this point, would have been followed by Arminians, 
and that they would have admitted, as he has done, that the 
common allegation about the injurious moral bearing of Calvinism 
is answered or neutralized by a fair application of the whole of 
what Calvinists teach upon this subject, we would scarcely have 
taken the trouble to expose the statements of Wesley and Watson. 
But the whole history of theological controversy prevents us from 
cherishing this expectation, and constrains us to fear that the 
generality of Arminian writers will continue to reiterate the old 
objection, and to disregard or evade the conclusive answer which 
has been so often given to it. 

Whately, as we have stated, while admitting that Calvinism 
can be successfully vindicated from the charge of having an 
injurious moral tendency, maintains that, by the same process by 
which this allegation is refuted, it can be proved that our doctrine 
has no practical bearing or effect whatever, but is a perfectly use- 
less, barren speculation. His views upon this point are brought 
out in this way : " It may be admitted that one who does practi- 
cally adopt and conform to this explanation of the doctrine, will 
not be led into any evil by it, since his conduct will not be in 
any respect influenced by it. When thus explained, it is reduced 
to a purely speculative dogma, barren of all practical results." 
" It is not contended that the doctrines in question have a hurtful 
influence on human conduct, and consequently are untrue, but 
that they have, according to the soundest exposition of them, no 
influence on our conduct whatever, and consequently (revelation 
not being designed to impart mere speculative knowledge) that 
they are not to be taught as revealed truths." " The doctrine is, 
if rightly viewed, of a purely speculative character, not ' belong- 
ing to us' practically, and which ought not, at least, in any way 
to influence our conduct." " Taking the system, then, as ex- 
pounded by its soundest advocates, it is impossible to show any 
one point in which a person is called upon either to act or to feel 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 567 

in any respect differently in consequence of his adopting it." 
" The preacher, in short, is to act in all respects as if the system 
were not true."* The general principle here laid down, of judg- 
ing whether a doctrine be revealed or not by an application of 
the test whether it be merely speculative, or have a practical 
bearing upon conduct, is a very unsound and dangerous one. 
Even though we were to concede the truth of his abstract posi- 
tion, that " revelation is not designed to impart mere speculative 
knowledge," — a position which is obscure and ambiguous, and the 
truth of which, consequently, is at least very doubtful, — we 
would still dispute the soundness and validity of the application 
he makes of it as a test. If we have a revelation from God, 
surely the right and reasonable course is, that we should do our 
utmost to ascertain correctly the whole of what it teaches upon 
every subject which it brings before us ; assured that, whatever it 
reveals, it is incumbent upon us to believe and proclaim, and, in 
some way or other, useful or beneficial for us to know. And if 
there be fair ground for believing that, in some sense or other, 
" revelation is not designed to impart to us mere speculative know- 
ledge," then we should draw from this the inference, that the 
doctrine which we have ascertained to be revealed is not merely 
speculative, but has — more or less directly, and more or less obvi- 
ously — some practical bearing or tendency. The soundness of this 
general inference is not in the least invalidated by the difficulty 
we may feel, in particular instances, in pointing out any very 
direct or obvious practical application of which a doctrine admits. 
Eevelation was undoubtedly intended to convey to us what may 
be called speculative or theoretical knowledge ; and though it 
may be admitted that the general and ultimate bearing and 
tendency of the whole system of revealed doctrine is to tell prac- 
tically upon character and conduct, it does not follow that every 
particular doctrine must have a direct, and still less an obvious, 
practical application. Some doctrines may have been revealed 
to us chiefly, or even solely, for the purpose of completing the 
general system of doctrine which God intended to teach us, and 
of aiding us in forming more clear and enlarged conceptions of 
other doctrines of more fundamental importance, without hav- 
ing by themselves any direct and immediate practical bearing. 



Essays, Second Series. Essay III., on Election, s. v. pp. 85-91, 7th Ed. 



568 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

Such doctrines might with some plausibility be ranked under 
the head of what Whately calls " mere speculative knowledge ;" 
and yet there is plainly no ground for regarding this as a proof, 
or even a presumption, that they have not been revealed, — if there 
be adequate ground, on a careful examination of the statements 
of Scripture, for believing that they are taught or indicated 
there. To set up our notions or impressions upon the ques- 
tion, whether a particular doctrine, alleged to be revealed in 
Scripture, is purely speculative or has a practical influence upon 
conduct, as furnishing anything like a test of the sufficiency 
of its scriptural evidence, is nothing better than presumptuous 
rationalism, and is fitted to undermine the supreme authority 
and the right application of Scripture as the infallible standard 
of truth. Dr Whately, to do him justice, has exhibited a good 
deal of obscurity and confusion in treating of this point. He 
says : * " I have waived the question as to the truth or falsity 
of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, inquiring only whether it 
be revealed ; " and then he goes on to assert, that " one of the 
reasons for deciding that question in the negative" is, that " the 
doctrine is, if rightly viewed, of a purely speculative character;" 
and again,f "I purposely abstain throughout from entering on 
the question as to what is absolutely true, inquiring only what is 
or is not to be received and taught as a portion of revealed gospel 
truth." Now we may surely assume that whatever is really 
taught in Scripture is to be received as " revealed gospel truth ; " 
and if so, then this forced and arbitrary distinction between the 
absolute truth of the Calvinistic doctrine, and its claim as a 
revealed truth, entirely disappears. The whole question resolves 
into this, What saith the Scripture 1 and this question must be de- 
termined upon its own proper grounds. If the Scripture sanctions 
the Calvinistic doctrine of election, then this establishes both its 
absolute truth and its position and claims as a revealed truth. 
If the Scripture does not sanction it, then it is not to be received 
either as true or as revealed ; for Calvinists, while maintaining 
that the fundamental principles of their system derive support and 
confirmation from the doctrines of natural theology, have never 
imagined that their doctrine of election, with all that it necessarily 
implies, could be conclusively proved to be true, except from the 

* P. 85. f P. 96. 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 569 

testimony of revelation. It would almost seem (for this is really 
the only supposition which can give anything like clearness or 
consistency to his statement) that he had a sort of vague notion — 
a kind of lurking suspicion — that the Calvinistic doctrine of 
election, though not revealed in Scripture, might or could be 
established by evidence derived from some other source, might be 
true though not revealed. But this is a position which probably 
he will not venture openly to assume ; and, therefore, we must 
continue to adhere to the conviction, that his statements upon this 
subject are characterized by obscurity and confusion. 

We have thought it proper to animadvert upon the fallacious 
and dangerous notions which seem to be involved in Dr Whately's 
general views upon the subject of applying the practical influence 
of doctrines as a test, not of whether they are true, but of whether 
they are revealed. But we have no hesitation in denying his more 
specific position, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election, when so 
expounded as to stand clear of any injurious tendency, has no 
practical bearing or effect, but is a mere useless, barren speculation. 
All that has been or can be proved upon this point is simply this, 
that the practical application of the Calvinistic doctrine does not 
extend over so wide a sphere, and does not bear so directly upon 
certain topics, as has sometimes been alleged both by its supporters 
and its opponents. 

The alleged practical tendencies and effects of Calvinism have 
always, entered very largely into the discussion of this whole con- 
troversy. Objections to the truth of Calvinism on the ground of 
its practical moral tendency, very obviously suggest themselves 
to men's minds, and carry with them a considerable measure of 
plausibility ; and men professing to believe Calvinistic doctrines 
have occasionally spoken and acted in such a way as to afford 
some countenance to these objections of opponents. Considering 
the obviousness and the plausibility of these objections, and the 
prominent place they have usually occupied in the writings of 
Arminians, it is of great importance that we have it now conceded 
by so able an opponent as Whately, that they are utterly base- 
less. In discussing this subject of the practical tendency of their 
system, Calvinists have acted chiefly upon the defensive. They 
have usually contented themselves, in a great measure, with 
repelling these objections, and proving that they are destitute of 
all solid foundation ; and having accomplished this, they have then 



570 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

fallen back again upon the direct and positive scriptural proof of 
their doctrine as establishing at once its truth, its importance, and 
its practical usefulness. The two principal rules by which we ought 
to be guided in discussing this branch of the subject, both with 
a view to the defence of our doctrine against opponents, and also 
to the discharge of the duty of making ourselves a right and 
profitable application of it, are these : — 1st, That the whole of the 
doctrine, and all that it necessarily involves, be fairly and fully 
taken into account, and a due application made of every part of 
it ; and especially that it never be forgotten that God's decrees 
and purposes, in reference to the eternal destinies of men, com- 
prehend or include the means as well as the end, and thus provide 
for and secure an invariable connection in fact between the means 
and the end — a connection which is not, and cannot be, in any 
instance dissolved ; and 2d, That we fully and freely admit, and 
apply at the same time, all other doctrines and principles which 
are established by satisfactory scriptural evidence, even though 
we may not be able fully to explain how they can be shown to be 
consistent with the peculiar doctrines of our system. A careful 
attention to these two rules will enable us easily and conclusively 
to repel the objections of our opponents ; and at the same time 
will effectually preserve us from falling into any serious error, in 
our own personal practical application of the doctrines we profess 
to believe. 

This is quite sufficient for all merely controversial purposes. But 
it is due to Dr Whately, who has shown so much candour and fair- 
ness in admitting the insufficiency of several arguments generally 
employed by the Arminians, to advert somewhat more particularly 
to his allegation, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election, though 
admitted to be, when rightly and fully explained, harmless and 
unobjectionable, is shown by the same process to be a mere barren, 
useless speculation, having no practical influence whatever; or, 
as he puts it, that "it is impossible to show any one point in 
which a person is called upon either to act or to feel in any 
respect differently in consequence of his adopting it." Calvinists 
do not profess to found much upon the practical application 
which may be made of their doctrine of election, as affording a 
positive argument in support of it. They are usually satisfied 
with proving from Scripture that it is true ; that it is revealed 
there as an object of faith ; and that, with respect to its practical 



Essay X.] PEACTICAL APPLICATION. 571 

application, it can be shown to be liable to no serious or solid 
objection. They admit that it is not fitted or intended to exert 
so comprehensive and so direct an influence upon character and 
conduct, as the great fundamental doctrines revealed in Scripture 
concerning the guilt and depravity of men in their natural state, 
the person and work of the Redeemer, and the agency of the Holy 
Spirit; and therefore should not hold so prominent a place as 
these in the ordinary course of public instruction. But they deny 
that it is a barren, useless speculation. They maintain that it has 
an appropriate practical influence, in its own proper place and 
sphere ; and that this influence, in its own department, and when- 
ever it comes legitimately into operation, is most wholesome and 
beneficial. There are, as all intelligent Calvinists admit, impor- 
tant departments of the duties imposed upon us by Scripture, — 
important steps which men must take in order to the salvation 
of their souls, — on which the Calvinistic doctrine of election has 
no direct practical bearing. It is upon a perversion or exaggera- 
tion of this fact, admitted by us, that the whole plausibility of 
Whately's allegation rests ; and it will be a sufficient answer to 
the substance of his statements upon this subject, and may at the 
same time serve other useful purposes, if — while indicating how 
far and in what sense his allegation is true — we briefly point out 
some legitimate practical applications of this doctrine, which are 
peculiar to it, and which cannot be derived from any other source. 
In doing so, we shall restrict our attention, as Whately does, to 
the subject of predestination in its bearing upon the eternal des- 
tinies of men, without including the more comprehensive subject 
of the foreordination of whatsoever comes to pass ; and shall of 
course now assume that the Calvinistic doctrine is true, and is 
held intelligently by those who profess to believe it. We hope to 
be able to show that Whately's error upon this point is traceable 
principally to this, that he has not here made the same full and 
candid estimate, as in some other branches of the argument, of 
the whole of what Calvinists usually adduce in explaining the 
practical application of their doctrine, and confines his observation 
to some of the features of the subject, and these not the most 
important and peculiar. 

The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination casts important light 
upon the character and moral government of God, a knowledge 
of which may be said to be the foundation of all religion. God 



572 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

makes himself known to us by all that He does, and by all that 
He permits to take place; and if it be true that He has from 
eternity formed certain decrees and purposes with regard to the 
everlasting destinies of men, and is executing these decrees or pur- 
poses in time, and if He has made known to us that He has done 
and is doing so, this must, from the nature of the case, afford 
important materials for knowing Him, and for understanding the 
principles that regulate His dealings with His creatures. What- 
ever He does or has purposed to do, must be in entire accordance 
with all the attributes and perfections of His nature, and is thus 
fitted to afford us materials for forming right apprehensions of 
their true bearing and results. We must form no conceptions of 
the supposed holiness, justice, or goodness of God, or of the way 
and manner in which these attributes would lead Him to act, 
inconsistent with what He has done or purposed to do. On the 
contrary, we must employ all that we know concerning His pro- 
cedure to regulate our views of His attributes and character. It 
is very common for men, especially those who reject the doctrines 
of Calvinism, to frame to themselves certain conceptions of the 
divine attributes, and then to deduce from them certain notions 
as to what God must do or cannot do. But this mode of reasoning 
is unphilosophical and dangerous, unsuited to our powers and 
capacities, which manifestly require of us that we should adopt 
an opposite course of procedure, and form our conceptions of the 
divine attributes from what we know of the divine purposes and 
actions ; and at least admit nothing into our conceptions of God's 
character, inconsistent with what we know that He has done or 
has purposed. The doctrine of predestination is to be regarded 
as serving a purpose, in this respect, analogous to that of the fall 
of the angels, — an event which has occurred under God's moral 
government, and is fitted to throw important light upon His 
character. The fact revealed to us, that some angels fell from 
their first estate, and that all who fell were left to perish irre- 
mediably, without any provision having been made for restoring 
them, or any opportunity of repentance having been allowed to 
them, refutes some of the conceptions which men are apt to form 
in regard to the divine character ; and it should be remembered 
and applied in the way of leading us to form juster conceptions 
upon this subject than generally obtain among us. The fact that, 
from the race of man, — all of them equally fallen and involved in 



Essay X.] PKACTICAL APPLICATION. 573 

guilt and depravity, — God of His good pleasure has predestinated 
some men to everlasting life, and passed by the rest and left them 
to perish in their sins, suggests nothing concerning the divine 
character inconsistent with what is indicated by the history of the 
fallen angels ; but while, in so far as concerns those men who 
perish, it confirms all the views of God which the history of the 
fallen angels suggests, and which we are usually most unwilling 
to receive, it supplies, in the purpose to save some men with an 
everlasting salvation, a new and most impressive manifestation of 
the divine character and moral government, which could not, so 
far as we can see, have been furnished in any other way. It is 
important then that we should realize what the Calvinistic doctrine 
of predestination, as a general truth revealed in Scripture, repre- 
sents God as having purposed from eternity, both in regard to 
those who are saved and those who perish ; and that we should 
apply this, as a great reality, in forming our conceptions of God's 
character and moral government, that thus we may know Him as 
fully as He has made himself known to us ; and may be enabled 
to glorify Him, by cherishing and expressing emotions, corre- 
sponding in every respect to all the perfections which He possesses, 
and to all the principles which actually regulate His dealings with 
His creatures. 

Dr Whately might probably call this " mere speculative 
knowledge." But this would be an abuse of language ; for it is 
certain that all the knowledge which God has been pleased to 
communicate to us concerning himself, concerning the perfections 
of His nature and the principles of His moral government, is both 
fitted and intended to exert a practical influence upon the feelings 
and conduct of men. 

But while it is thus plain that the Calvinistic doctrine of pre- 
destination — contemplated simply as a truth about God revealed 
in Scripture — is fitted to exert a general practical influence upon 
men's views and feelings, we have further to inquire, whether 
there be any direct personal application which men can legitimately 
make of it, in its bearing upon themselves singly and individually. 
And upon this question, the substance of what we believe to be 
true is this, — 1st, That men cannot legitimately make any direct 
personal application of^ this doctrine to themselves individually, 
unless and until they have good reason to believe that they them- 
selves individually have been elected to eternal life, — that is, of 



574 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

course (for there is no other way of ascertaining this), good reason 
to believe that they have been enabled to receive and submit to 
Christ as their Saviour, and have been born again of His word and 
Spirit ; and 2d, That when men have come to believe, upon good 
grounds, that they have been elected, the personal practical appli- 
cation of the doctrine is most obvious and most wholesome. 

Men cannot make any direct personal application of the doc- 
trine of predestination to themselves individually, so long as they 
continue in their natural state of guilt and estrangement from God, 
and while they have not yet embraced the offers and invitations of 
the gospel and entered the service of Christ ; and therefore, with 
reference to all the duties and obligations attaching to this condi- 
tion of things, the doctrine is not to be taken into account, or to 
exert any direct practical influence. We admit, nay, we contend, 
that this doctrine has no immediate practical bearing upon the 
process of setting before sinners, and urging upon them, the com- 
mands and invitations addressed to them in connection with the 
scheme of salvation, or on the right regulation of their conduct 
in dealing with these commands and invitations. This arises 
manifestly from the very nature of the case. Preachers of the 
gospel are not only warranted but bound to address the offers and 
invitations of God's word to men indiscriminately, without distinc- 
tion and exception ; and having God's sanction and command for 
this, they should do it without hesitation and without restriction. 
God does this, in order that He may thereby execute the purpose 
which He formed from eternity concerning the everlasting destinies 
of men ; and that He may do so in accordance with the principles 
of man's moral constitution, and with all his capacities and respon- 
sibilities ; and ministers are bound to do this in God's name, just 
because He requires it at their hands. Those who have not yet 
submitted to, or complied with, the commands and invitations of 
the gospel, cannot, in their present state, — though they may know, 
and profess to believe, the general doctrine of predestination as a 
part of God's revealed truth,- — know anything whatever bearing 
in any way upon the question, whether they themselves individually 
have been elected or not ; and therefore they have no right to take 
any opinion or impression upon this point into account, in dealing 
with the commands and invitations which are addressed to them. 
As they can know nothing about it, they should in the meantime 
leave it out of view, and give it no practical weight or effect what- 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 575 

ever. The general doctrine of predestination — the truth that God 
has chosen some men to everlasting life, and has resolved to pass 
by the rest and to leave them to perish in their sins — is taught in 
Scripture ; and therefore all who have access to the Bible ought 
to believe it. But men are to apply and to act upon only what 
they do know ; and as, at the time when they are in the condition 
of considering how they should deal with the commands and invi- 
tations of the gospel, addressed to them and pressed upon them, 
they cannot know whether they themselves have been elected or 
not, they are not at liberty to take either an affirmative or a nega- 
tive opinion upon this point into account, and to act upon it as a 
reality — as a thing known. The general truth, that God has 
elected some and passed by others, — which is the whole of the 
doctrine of predestination as taught in Scripture, — does not furnish 
any materials whatever for practically influencing their conduct in 
their present circumstances, or with reference to the point which 
they have at present under consideration, and with which they are 
bound to deal ; and therefore their duty, in right reason, is just to 
abstain from applying it to the particular matter on hand, and to 
proceed at once to obey the command and to accept of the invita- 
tion addressed to them. Any other course of procedure , in the 
circumstances is manifestly irrational, as resting upon no actual 
ground of knowledge; and as the doctrine of predestination taught 
in Scripture does not rationally produce, or tend to produce, a 
hesitation or a refusal to accept of the offers and invitations of the 
gospel, so it is in no way legitimately responsible for this result in 
any instance in which it may have been exhibited. 

All this is abundantly evident ; and though denied by most 
Arminians, who would fain represent the doctrine of predestina- 
tion as throwing rational and legitimate obstacles in the way of 
men receiving and submitting to the gospel, it is admitted by 
Dr Whately, who makes it an objection to our doctrine, that 
" the preacher" (and, of course, also the hearer) " is to act in all 
respects as if the system were not true." This is not a correct 
representation of the state of the case. The preacher is bound to 
state the whole truth of God, as it is revealed in His word ; and to 
urge upon every man to apply every truth according to its true 
nature and real import, viewed in connection with his actual cir- 
cumstances. The doctrine of predestination, as we have seen, 
casts much light upon the character and moral government of God ; 



576 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

and" it must always be a matter of great practical importance, that 
men have full and correct views and impressions upon these 
points. Whenever they have learned this doctrine, they are 
bound to apply it, according to its true nature and all that it fairly 
involves. But at the time when they have not yet embraced the 
offers and invitations of the gospel, and are only considering how 
they should deal with them, they have not yet any materials what- 
ever for applying it, in the way of bearing upon the question, 
whether they have been elected or not ; and therefore, so far as 
that point is concerned, -they are to act, not as Dr Whately says, 
as if the system or general doctrine of predestination were not 
true, but merely (for this is evidently the true state of the case) 
as if it did not then, at that time, afford any materials for deter- 
mining one particular question concerning themselves individually; 
and thus did not afford any materials for deciding upon the one 
point of how they should deal with the commands and invitations 
addressed to them. Thus far, and to this extent, it is true that 
neither preacher nor hearer can make a direct, personal, individual 
application of the doctrine ; but this is very far from warranting 
Whately's assertion, that the doctrine does not admit of any per- 
sonal practical application whatever. 

For men may come at length to know upon sound and rational 
grounds that they have been elected to everlasting life ; and it is 
then, and then only, that the practical personal application of the 
doctrine to men individually is brought out. Arminians are ac- 
customed to represent the matter as if the belief of the general 
scriptural doctrine, that God has elected some men to life and 
passed by the rest, must necessarily include in it the means of 
knowing directly and immediately what men individually have 
been elected, and what have been passed by ; and they often in- 
sinuate, moreover, that all who profess to believe in the doctrine 
of election, imagine, upon the mere ground of the truth of this 
doctrine, and without any intermediate process, that they them- 
selves have been elected. God might have revealed to us this 
general doctrine, and required us to apply it in the way of regu- 
lating our general conceptions of His character and. moral govern- 
ment, and yet might have afforded us no materials for deciding 
certainly at any time, whether we individually had been elected 
or not. And in connection with this point, it is most important 
to remember that He has not provided any materials from which 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 577 

any man upon earth can ever, without a special revelation, be 
warranted in drawing the conclusion that he himself, or that any 
one of his fellow-men, has not been elected ; and that conse- 
quently no man is ever warranted to act upon this conviction as 
certainly true of himself. Arminians are fond of representing the 
doctrine of predestination as fitted to throw men into despair, by 
making them believe that they are foreordained to everlasting 
death. Bat while the doctrine implies that this is true of some 
men, in the sense which has been explained, it does not contain 
in itself, or when viewed in connection with any materials which 
are within our reach, any ground to warrant any man to come to 
this conclusion with respect to himself. And, therefore, despair 
is not in any case the proper legitimate result of the application 
of this doctrine, but must arise, wherever it exists, from the per- 
version or abuse of it, or of some other principle connected with it. 
Men may, indeed, have abundant ground for the conclusion that 
their present condition is one of guilt and depravity ; and that, 
consequently, if they were to die now, they would inevitably be 
consigned to misery. But there is evidently nothing in this that 
affords any legitimate ground for the conclusion that God has 
from eternity passed them by and resolved to withhold from them 
His grace. This was once the condition of all men ; and many 
have been rescued from it who had gone to a fearful excess of 
depravity. If men, indeed, did or could know that they had been 
guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost, or of the sin unto death, 
they might then legitimately draw the inference, that their eternal 
doom was fixed and could not be changed. But while we know 
the general truth that such sins may be committed, there are no 
materials provided in Scripture, by the application of which any 
man is warranted in coming to the certain and positive conclusion 
that he has committed them. And, in like manner, while we 
know that God has resolved to leave some men to perish in their 
sin, we have no materials provided by which any man is war- 
ranted, while he is upon earth, in coming to the conclusion that 
he belongs to this number; and consequently there is no legitimate 
ground in the doctrine of predestination, or in any other doctrine 
taught in Scripture, why any man should despair, — should re- 
nounce all hope of salvation, — should act as if his condemnation 
were unchangeably determined, and on this account should refuse 
to comply with the offers and invitations of the gospel. 

VOL. I. 37 



578 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

But although no man while upon earth can have any good 
ground for despairing of salvation, — as if he had full warrant for 
the conclusion that he has not been elected, — men may have good 
ground for believing that they have been from eternity elected to 
everlasting life ; and of course are called upon to apply this con- 
viction according to its true nature and bearings. This important 
point is thus admirably stated in the Westminster Confession : — 
" The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be 
handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the 
will of God revealed in His word, and yielding obedience there- 
unto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured 
of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of 
praise, reverence, and admiration of God ; and of humility, dili- 
gence, and abundant consolation, to all that sincerely obey the 
gospel."* No man has any ground to conclude that he has been 
elected, merely because Scripture teaches the general doctrine, 
that God has chosen some men to everlasting life. Other 
materials must be furnished and applied, before any man is 
warranted to cherish this conviction. Some change must be 
effected in him, which is a necessary or invariable accompaniment 
or consequence of eternal election, and which may thus test and 
establish its reality in reference to him. It is a part of our doc- 
trine, that every man who has been elected to life from eternity is 
in time effectually called, or has faith and regeneration produced 
in him by the operation of God's Spirit. No man has or can 
have any sufficient ground for believing that he has been elected, 
unless and until he has been enabled to believe in Christ Jesus, 
and has been born again of the word of God through the belief of 
the truth ; and wherever these changes have been effected, this 
must have been done in the execution of God's eternal purpose ; 
and thus, taken in connection with the Scripture doctrines of 
election and perseverance, they afford satisfactory grounds for the 
conclusion, that every one in whom they have been wrought has 
been from eternity elected to life, and shall certainly be saved. 
It is only from the certainty of their effectual vocation that men 
can be assured of their eternal election. But all who have been 
effectually called, and who are assured of this by a right applica- 
tion of the scriptural materials bearing upon the point, are bound, 



Chap. iii. s. 



Essay X.] PEACTICAL APPLICATION. 579 

in the application of the doctrine of election, to believe that they 
have been elected, and to apply this conclusion according to its 
true nature and bearings. 

The materials by which men may attain to certainty as to their 
effectual vocation are to be found partly in Scripture, and partly 
in themselves ; and by a right use of these materials, men may, 
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, attain to a firm and well- 
grounded conviction upon this point ; and thus arrive at decided 
conclusions, both with respect to God's eternal purposes in regard 
to them, and with respect to their own everlasting destiny. If 
they have fallen into error in the application of these materials, if 
they have been persuaded of the certainty of their effectual voca- 
tion without good grounds, — that is, if they believe that they have 
been effectually called when they have not, — then, of course, all 
their ulterior conclusions about the certainty of their election 
and of their perseverance fall to the ground ; they too must 
be equally erroneous, and therefore can exert only an injurious 
influence. But the doctrine of election is not responsible for this 
error, or for any of the injurious consequences that may have re- 
sulted from it. The error was solely their own, arising either from 
ignorance of what Scripture teaches upon the subject of effectual 
calling, or from ignorance of themselves, — or from both. Such 
cases afford no specimen of the right and legitimate application, or 
the natural and appropriate tendency, of the doctrine of election, or 
of any doctrine that is connected with it. The full and legitimate 
application of this doctrine is exhibited only in the case of those 
who have been effectually called,- — who are persuaded of this upon 
solid and satisfactory grounds, — and who, from this fact, viewed 
in connection with the general doctrine of election taught in Scrip- 
ture, have drawn the inference or conclusion, that they have been 
elected to everlasting life, and that they shall certainly persevere 
in faith and holiness unto the end, and be eternally saved. 

And what is the natural and appropriate result of this state of 
mind, — of these views and convictions about our present condition 
and future prospects, and the whole procedure of God in connec- 
tion with them ? The legitimate result of this state of mind, and 
consequently the right application of the doctrine, as soon as it 
comes to admit of a direct practical bearing on the case of men in- 
dividually, is not to encourage them in carelessness or indifference 
about the regulation of their conduct, about the discharge of their 



580 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

duty, as if the result were secured do what they might, — that is, 
as if God had not established an invariable connection between 
the means and the end, or had not left all the moral obligations 
under which men lie at least unimpaired. Dr Whately admits 
that our doctrine is not liable to any charge of injurious tendency 
on this ground. But it is surely manifest that it is fitted to exert, 
directly and positively, an important practical influence. When 
men who have been effectually called, infer from their effectual 
vocation, established by its appropriate evidence, that they have 
been elected and shall certainly be saved ; and when they realize 
and apply aright all the views which are thus presented of their 
condition, obligations, and prospects, — of all that God has done 
and will yet do with regard to them ; the result must be, that the 
doctrine of election, or the special aspect in which that doctrine 
presents and impresses all the considerations, retrospective and 
prospective, which ought to influence and affect the mind, will 
afford, as the Confession says, " matter of praise, reverence, and 
admiration of God ; " inasmuch as it brings out, in a light, clearer, 
more palpable, and more impressive than could be derived from 
any other source, how entirely God is the author of our salvation 
and of all that leads to it, — of all that we have and all that we 
hope for, — how gloriously His perfections have been manifested 
in all that He has done for us, — and how supremely we should 
feel ourselves constrained to show forth His praises, and to yield 
ourselves unto Him. It must afford, also, " matter of humility, 
diligence, and abundant consolation to all who sincerely obey the 
gospel," — most effectually bringing down every high thought and 
every imagination that exalteth itself, filling with peace and joy 
in believing amid every difficulty and danger, and keeping alive 
at all times a sense of the most profound and powerful obligation 
to aim supremely and unceasingly at the great object to which 
God's electing purpose was directed, — on account of which, in the 
execution of that purpose, Christ gave himself for us, and sent 
forth His Spirit into our hearts, — viz. that we should be holy and 
without blame before Him in love, that we should be cleansed 
from all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit, and be enabled to 
perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord, that we should be made 
meet for the everlasting enjoyment of His glorious presence. 

When, then, men are assured of their eternal election, as an 
inference or deduction from the certainty of their effectual voca- 



Essay X.] 



PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 



581 



tion, this suggests and inculcates views of God and of themselves 
— of what He has purposed and done for them, and of the relation 
in which they stand to Him — of their past history, present condi- 
tion, and future prospects — whicli cannot be derived, at least in 
the same measure and degree, or of so definite and effective a 
character, from any other form or aspect in which these subjects 
can be presented ; views fitted to cherish in the heart all those 
feelings, desires, and motives that constitute or produce true piety 
and genuine godliness, and thus to assimilate men's character and 
conduct on earth to the life of heaven.* 

In a note subjoined to his " Essay on Election,"! Dr Whately 
makes an ingenious attempt to get some countenance to his notion, 
that the Calvinistic doctrine of election has no practical effect or 
bearing, from the 17th Article of the Church of England; while 
at the same time he tries to undermine the testimony in favour of 
Calvinism, which has been derived from that Article ; and it may 
tend to throw further light upon the subject we have been con- 
sidering, if we briefly examine his statements upon this point. He 
begins with quoting from one of his previous works some ob- 
servations upon the principles which have often regulated the 
composition, and should therefore regulate the interpretation, of 
public ecclesiastical documents or symbolical books. He dwells 
especially upon the idea that these documents have been often 
the results of a compromise among men who differed somewhat 
from each other in their opinions, and illustrates the bearing of 
this consideration upon the right mode of explaining and applying 
them. His general views upon this subject are very sound and 
judicious, and may be most usefully applied in the explanation of 
many important ecclesiastical documents ; but we think he utterly 
fails in the attempt he makes to apply them to the 17th Article of 
his own church. We quote the whole of his statement upon this 
point, and we request our readers to give it their special attention: — 

" Our 17th Article is a striking exemplification of what has been said ; 
for it contains modifications and limitations in one part of what is laid down 
in another, such as go near to neutralize the one by the other. 

" It begins by stating the doctrine of predestination in a form which cer- 
tainly may be, and we know often has been, understood in the Calvinistic 



* For a masterly and exhaustive 
discussion of this subject,see Dr Owen's 
great work on the Holy Spirit, B. v. 



c. ii. : — " Eternal Election, a cause of 
and motive unto holiness." 
t P. 97. 



582 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

sense ; and then it proceeds to point out the danger of dwelling on that doc- 
trine, if so. understood, before curious and carnal persons, of whom one may- 
presume there will usually be some in any congregation or mixed company, 
so that such a doctrine is seldom if ever to be publicly set forth. Next, it 
cautions us against taking the divine promises otherwise than as they are 
generally (generaliter) set forth in Scripture ; that is, as made to classes cf 
men, — those of such and such a description, and not to individuals. We are 
not, in short, to pronounce this or that man one of the elect (in the Calvinistic 
sense), except so far as we may judge from the kind of character he manifests. 
And lastly, we are warned, in our own conduct, not to vindicate any act as 
conformable to God's will, on the ground that whatever takes place must have 
been decreed by Him, but are to consider conformity to His will as consisting 
in obedience to His injunctions. 

" If, then, some may say, this doctrine is (1) not to he publicly set forth, 
nor (2) applied in out judgment of any individual, nor (3) applied in our own 
conduct, why need it have been at all mentioned ? 

" As for the comfort enjoyed from the ' godly consideration ' of it by those 
who ' feel within themselves the working of God's Holy Spirit,' etc., it would 
be most unreasonable to suppose that this cannot be equally enjoyed by those 
who do not hold predestinarian views, but who not the less fully trust in and 
love their Redeemer, and ' keep His saying.' 

" But the Article is manifestly the result of a compromise between conflict- 
ing views ; one party insisting on the insertion of certain statements, which 
the other consented to admit only on condition of the insertion of certain 
limitations and cautions, to guard against the dangers that might attend the 
reception of the doctrine in a sense of which the former passage is capable." 

The views set forth in this passage may be considered in two 
different aspects : — Is*, In their bearing generally upon the Cal- 
vinism of the Articles ; and 2d, In their bearing upon Whately's 
special allegation, that the Calvinistic doctrine does not admit of 
any practical application. 

On the first of these topics, Whately seems to intend to 
insinuate that the 17th Article, as it stands, was the result of a 
compromise between men holding different and opposite views on 
the subjects controverted between Calvinists and Arminians; some 
statements being put in to please or satisfy the one party, and 
some to please or satisfy the other. It is on the ground of some 
notion of this sort that many have contended that the theology of 
the Church of England is neither Calvinism nor Arminianism ; 
while others have embodied the same general idea in a somewhat 
different form, by maintaining that it is both the one and the other. 
But there is nothing whatever to support the idea of any such 
compromise, either in the actual statements of the Article itself, 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 583 

or in the historical facts as to the theological sentiments of its 
authors, and the circumstances in which it was composed. It 
must now be regarded as a conclusively established historical fact, 
— a fact about which there is scarcely room for an honest differ- 
ence of opinion, — that the framers of the English Articles were 
Calvinists, and of course intended to teach Calvinism ; or at least 
could not have intended to teach anything at all inconsistent with 
it. And there is certainly nothing in the Article itself to contra- 
dict or discountenance this conclusion, to which the whole history 
of the matter so plainly points. There is not one statement con- 
tained in the Article to which any reasonable and intelligent Cal- 
vinist ever has objected, or ever could have thought of objecting. 
How honest and intelligent men who are not Calvinists can satisfy 
or pacify their consciences in subscribing it, is a mystery which 
we never have been able to solve. But with this we are not at 
present concerned. It is certain that there is nothing in the 
17th Article — not a thought or idea — but what is found in other 
confessions undeniably Calvinistic, and in the writings of Calvin 
himself, and of all the ablest and most eminent Calvinistic divines. 
The framers of the English Articles were no doubt moderate 
Calvinists, who were not disposed to give countenance to the 
more extreme and minute expositions of the subject in which some 
Calvinists have indulged ; and who were anxious to guard against 
the practical abuses into which some unintelligent and injudicious 
persons have fallen in the application of the doctrine, and to which 
we admit the doctrine is obviously liable in the hands of such per- 
sons. But there is really not a shadow of ground for Whately's 
assertion, that " the Article is manifestly the result of a compro- 
mise between conflicting views ; " and the conclusive proof of this 
is, that there is nothing in it which would not naturally and at 
once suggest itself as a matter of course to any intelligent- Cal- 
vinist, who wished to give a temperate and careful statement of 
his opinions. His statements about " modifications and limita- 
tions," " limitations and cautions," which one party insisted upon 
in order to neutralize something else ; and about this party con- 
senting to admit the leading and general position, which it is 
admitted has a very Calvinistic aspect, " only on the condition 
of the insertion" of these limitations and cautions to modify it, 
are a pure fiction, utterly unsupported by anything either in the 
history of the Article or in the Article itself. No man could have 



584 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

made such statements who was intelligently acquainted with the 
writings of Calvinistic divines, which make it manifest that such 
cautions and limitations constitute a natural and familiar common- 
place in the exposition of their system of theology. Not only are 
the limitations and cautions in the Article perfectly consistent with 
Calvinism, but some of them are of such a nature as could only 
have been suggested and required by a previous statement of Cal- 
vinistic doctrine ; and thus afford a positive proof, that its leading 
general statement is, and was intended to be, a declaration of the 
fundamental principle of Calvinism. 

It is but fair, however, to remark, that Dr Whately has not 
here stated, precisely and explicitly, what were the "conflicting 
views" which he considers to have been compromised in the Article 
by modifying and neutralizing limitations ; and that thus it may 
be open to him to allege, in his own defence, that he did not mean 
to deny the Calvinism of the Article, or to assert that there is 
anything in it opposed to the views generally held by Calvinistic 
divines ; and that the " conflicting views," which he says were 
compromised, referred only to minor points, in which Calvinists 
might differ among themselves. If this should be pleaded in his 
defence, then we have to say that he ought to have made his 
meaning and object more clear and definite than he has done; 
and that the natural and obvious bearing of his statements, viewed 
in connection with the common mode of discussing this topic 
among a large class of Episcopalian divines, decidedly favours the 
idea, that, by " conflicting views," he just meant the opposite 
opinions of Calvinists and Arminians. If his statement about 
" conflicting views " referred to points of inferior importance, in 
which Calvinists might differ from each other, it is at once trifling 
and irrelevant ; and if it referred to the differences between Cal- 
vinists and Arminians, it is conclusively disproved, at once by all 
that is known concerning the history and the authors of the Article, 
and by the fact that there is nothing in it but what is maintained 
explicitly and unhesitatingly by the great body of Calvinistic theo- 
logians. 

But we have to do at present chiefly with the attempt made 
by Whately to get, from the 17th Article, support for his allega- 
tion, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election does not admit of 
any practical application. The Article consists of three divisions. 
The first, and most important, is a general statement of the doc- 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 585 

trine which Whately says u may be, and we know often has been, 
understood in the Calvinistic sense ; ? ' and which all Calvinists 
regard as a clear and accurate description of the whole process 
by which sinners are saved, in full accordance with the distinc- 
tive features of their system of theology. The second division 
sets forth the practical application of this Calvinistic doctrine 
under two heads, — the first declaring the " sweet and pleasant" 
use that may be made of it u by godly persons," " as well because 
it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salva- 
tion to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently 
kindle their love towards God;" and the second warning against 
an abuse to which it may be perverted by " curious and carnal 
persons lacking (in the Latin destituti) the spirit of Christ," who, 
if they " have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's 
predestination," may be led thereby into despair and profligacy. 
The third and last division consists of two positions, which do 
not, indeed, quite so clearly and certainly suggest or imply the 
Calvinistic doctrine, as do the use and abuse under the second 
division, but which are at least perfectly consistent with it. They 
may, indeed, be called " limitations and cautions;" since, in exact 
accordance with the principles we have already explained, they 
limit the sphere of the practical application of the doctrine, and 
caution against applying it to matters on which it has no proper 
or legitimate bearing. These two limitations or cautions are,— 
first, " we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be 
generally set forth to us in Scripture;" and second, "in our 
doings, that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly 
declared to us in the word of God." 

It will be observed that Whately, in the quotation we have 
given from him, postpones the consideration of the first head 
under the second division, about the use or application that is 
and should be made of this doctrine by godly persons ; proceeds 
at once to the abuse of the doctrine condemned in the second head 
of the second division, and to the two limitations or cautions set 
forth in the third ; and having endeavoured to extort from these 
three topics some support for his main allegation, he then returns 
to the explicit declaration of the Article about the right use or 
practical application of the doctrine, and tries to dispose of it. 
The whole process is very curious, as a specimen of careful and 
elaborate sophistry, though it is certainly not very successful. 



586 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

The way in which he turns to account the statement in the 
Article, about the abuse that may be made of the doctrine by 
carnal and ungodly persons, is this : Upon the assumption that 
there will usually be some such persons in any congregation, he 
bases the inference that " such a doctrine is seldom if ever to be 
publicly set forth ;" and from the application which he afterwards 
makes of this inference, in his summing up of the argument, it is 
plain that he wishes it to be received as suggested by, or involved 
in, the statement in the Article itself, as if it were intended to be 
taught there at least by implication. Now, it is surely manifest 
that there is nothing in the Article which affords any appearance 
of ground for this inference. The liability of a doctrine to be 
abused by a certain class of persons is certainly not a sufficient 
reason why it should be " seldom if ever publicly set forth," but 
only a reason why, when it is set forth, the right use and appli- 
cation of it should be carefully pointed out, and the abuse or 
perversion of it carefully guarded against. To ascribe to the com- 
pilers of this Article a notion of so peculiar a kind, as that a 
doctrine which they had set forth as a great scriptural truth should 
seldom if ever be publicly taught, when they had not said this, 
or anything like it, and to do this upon a ground so palpably 
inadequate, is a kind of procedure which is wholly unwarrantable. 

He then proceeds to the two limitations or cautions set forth 
in the third and last division of the Article ; and to the account 
which, in the first instance, he gives of their import and bearing, 
we have nothing to object. It is true, as he alleges, that the first 
of them implies that " we are not to pronounce this or that man 
one of the elect (in "the Calvinistic sense), except so far as we may 
judge from the kind of character he manifests;" and that the 
second implies, that we are, " in our own conduct, not to vindicate 
any act as conformable to God's will, on the ground that what- 
ever takes place must have been decreed by Him, but to consider 
conformity to His will as consisting in obedience to His injunc- 
tions." These positions are true in themselves ; they are plainly 
implied in the concluding division of the Article ; and they cer- 
tainly limit materially the sphere of the practical application of 
the doctrine; but we think it manifest, from the explanations 
which have already been submitted, that they are altogether irre- 
levant to Whately's leading allegation, that the doctrine admits 
of no practical application whatever. 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 587 

He then goes on to give the summing up of the preceding 
argument in this way : " If, then, some may say" (he evidently 
wishes it to be believed that men may say all this truly and 
justly), " this doctrine is (1) not to be publicly set forth, nor (2) 
applied in our judgment of any individual, nor (3) applied in our 
own conduct, why need it have been at all mentioned?" The 
conclusion here indefinitely and modestly indicated in the shape 
of a question, is evidently intended as equivalent to an assertion 
of his favourite position, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election, 
even if admitted to be true, is a mere barren speculation, destitute 
of all practical influence. The question in which his conclusion 
is embodied is virtually addressed to the compilers of the Articles, 
and it plainly involves a serious charge against them for teaching 
this doctrine, when, in Whately's estimation, there was no need 
to mention it. Their answer to this charge would undoubtedly 
have been, that there was need to mention it — 1st, because it 
was a portion of God's revealed truth ; and 2d, because it had an 
important practical use or application in the case of godly persons, 
as they had fully set forth in the first head of the second division 
of the Article. But let us advert to the three points in which he 
has summed up his argument, and which he represents as all 
sanctioned by the statements of the Article on which he had been 
commenting. The first is, that " this doctrine is not to be publicly 
set forth." This he had previously put in the modified form, that 
"it is seldom if ever to be publicly set forth;" but now, when 
he is summing up his argument, and endeavouring to found upon 
this consideration a presumption (for he could scarcely regard it 
as a proof) in support of his conclusion, he drops the qualification, 
and makes the assertion absolute, — " the doctrine is not to be 
publicly set forth." We have already shown that there is no 
ground for this assertion in anything contained in the Article. 
The statement that the doctrine is liable to be abused by a certain 
class of persons, affords no ground whatever for the inference which 
Whately deduces from it, even in its qualified form. It furnishes 
good ground, indeed, for the declaration of the Westminster 
Confession, that the " doctrine of this high mystery of predesti- 
nation is to be handled with special prudence and care," but for 
nothing more ; and with this, we have no doubt, the compilers of 
the Thirty-nine Articles would have been perfectly satisfied, as 
embodying all that they meant to teach upon this point. 



588 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

The second and third points — viz. that this doctrine is not to 
be applied, or does not admit of any practical application, either 
in our judgment of any individual, or in the regulation of our 
own conduct — are intended as a compendious statement of the 
two limitations or cautions in the concluding section of the Article. 
These two points he had previously explained more fully and 
definitely, and, as we have admitted, correctly. But we do not 
admit that there is the same fairness and correctness in the more 
indefinite and compendious statement of them which he now gives 
in his summing up. Our objection to his argument, founded 
upon these two points, was, that they merely limited the sphere 
of the practical application of the doctrine of election, but did not 
prove his allegation, that it had no practical application whatever. 
He seems to have had a sort of indistinct apprehension of this 
radical defect in his argument ; and in his summing up he tries 
to conceal it, by putting these two points in the most indefinite 
and comprehensive form, so as to give them the appearance of 
covering the whole ground, and thus leaving no room whatever 
for the practical application of the doctrine. To say absolutely, 
and without any qualification or explanation, that the doctrine is 
not to be applied in our judgment of any individual or in our own 
conduct, is to assert rather more than we can admit to be true in 
itself, or sanctioned by the statements of the Article, and rather 
more than is implied in the more full and formal exposition of 
these statements which he himself had previously given. On 
these grounds, we cannot but regard Whately's summing up of 
his argument upon this subject as exhibiting more of the sophist 
than of the logician. 

After having done what he could to find some materials in the 
Article to give positive countenance to his allegation, he comes at 
last to consider what is there set forth about the use and applica- 
tion of the doctrine. This — both from its position in the Article, 
and its more direct and immediate bearing upon the point in 
dispute — ought in fairness to have been considered first. But 
Whately evidently thought it expedient to accumulate something 
like evidence in support of his position, before he ventured to face 
the statement which so explicitly and conclusively disproves it. 
The way in which he attempts to dispose of the statement is this, 
— " As for the comfort enjoyed from the ( godly consideration' of 
it by those who ' feel within themselves the workings of God's 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 589 

Holy Spirit,' etc., it would be most unreasonable to suppose that 
this cannot be equally enjoyed by those who do not hold predes- 
tinarian views, but who not the less fully trust in and love their 
Kedeemer, and keep His saying." Now, upon this we have to 
remark, ls£ r That the Article does most expressly ascribe a specific 
use — a definite practical application — to the godly consideration 
of this doctrine by truly religious persons ; and 2d, That there is 
nothing unreasonable in ascribing to it this use and application. 
The Article expressly asserts, that "the godly consideration of 
predestination and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, 
and unspeakable comfort to godly persons;" and the ascription of 
this result to the " consideration " of this doctrine, is of itself a 
flat and explicit contradiction to Whately's position, which no 
sophistry or shuffling, and no accumulation of probabilities or pre- 
sumptions, can evade or dispose of. The Article further specifies 
the process by which the consideration of this doctrine produces 
this result of " unspeakable comfort to godly persons ; " — viz. " as 
well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith 
of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it 
doth fervently kindle their love to God." To allege that the 
Article, in ascribing to this doctrine the production of unspeakable 
comfort, by confirming men's faith of their eternal salvation, and 
increasing their love to God, did not intend to state anything 
peculiar to this doctrine, but merely described what might be 
derived equally or as fully from the consideration of other doc- 
trines, is plainly to charge the Article with containing downright 
nonsense or unmeaning verbiage. And here we may remark by 
the way, that the manifest and exact accordance between the view 
given in the 17th Article of the Church of England, concerning 
the right use and application of the doctrine of " predestination 
and our election in Christ," with the representation given of the 
same subject in the Westminster Confession, which we have 
already explained and illustrated, furnishes a proof of the identity 
of the system of doctrine taught in these two symbols. 

As to the alleged unreasonableness of ascribing any such use 
or application specifically to the Calvinistic doctrine of election, 
we have, we think, sufficiently refuted this in our general obser- 
vations upon this subject. And, indeed, it is surely self-evident, 
that this doctrine, when intelligently and rationally applied by 
persons who have good grounds for believing that they have 



590 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

been elected to eternal life, must produce practical results upon 
their views and feelings, — -results operating beneficially upon their 
character and conduct, — which cannot be derived equally, if at 
all, from any other source. We admit, indeed, that the practical 
results derived from the application of this doctrine are confined 
within a narrow sphere, and do not bear directly upon the enjoy- 
ment of the great essential blessings of the gospel, or upon the 
production of the fundamental elements of Christian character. 
They do not bear directly upon justification and regeneration, — the 
essential blessings on which universally, and in every instance, the 
salvation of sinners depends. They are connected more immedi- 
ately with what may be called the secondary or subordinate bless- 
ings of the gospel, — " assurance of God's love, peace of conscience, 
and joy in the Holy Ghost." But these form no unimportant 
part of the gospel provision. They materially affect not only the 
" comfort of godly persons," but their growth in grace ; and they 
operate powerfully in aiding their increase in holiness, and in 
securing their perseverance therein unto the end. Every sinner 
who has been justified and regenerated shall assuredly be saved. 
And we have no doubt that many men have been made meet for 
heaven, and admitted to the enjoyment of it, who never, so long as 
they continued upon earth, understood or believed the Calvinistic 
doctrine of election. The specific practical personal application 
of the doctrine, by men individually in their own case, requires, 
indeed, as its necessary antecedents and conditions, not only that 
they have in fact been enabled to repent and believe in Christ, 
— that they have entered upon the way which leadeth to 'heaven, 
by embracing Christ as He is freely offered to them in the gospel, 
— but also, that they are assured, upon good and sufficient 
grounds, that this is their present condition. And we willingly 
concede that not a few have been by God's grace brought into 
this condition, and at last admitted into the kingdom of glory, 
who never attained to a distinct u certainty of their effectual voca- 
tion," and therefore could not be rationally " assured of their 
eternal election ; " and who, of course, could make no direct 
personal application of the doctrine of election to their own case, 
or derive from it the special spiritual benefit which it is fitted to 
impart. But we are persuaded that all these persons lived some- 
what beneath their privileges, — failed, to some extent, in walking 
worthily of their high and holy calling, — and came short, more 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 591 

or less, in fully adorning their Christian profession, by their 
ignorance or unbelief of the information which God has given us 
in His word, concerning His sovereign purpose of mercy in Christ 
Jesus in regard to all who are saved ; an absolute and unchange- 
able purpose formed from eternity, and executed in time, by 
bestowing upon them all those things which accompany salvation, 
and prepare for the enjoyment of heaven. 

We shall conclude with a few additional remarks suggested 
by the last section of the 17th of the Thirty-nine Articles. It is 
expressed in these words : — " Furthermore, we must receive God's 
promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy 
Scripture ; and, in our doings, that will of God is to be followed 
which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God." 
We have already said enough to show that these two statements 
— while they certainly limit or restrict the legitimate sphere of the 
personal practical application of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, 
and caution against the abuses which have been made of it — con- 
tain nothing whatever in the least inconsistent with Calvinism ; 
nothing but what is to be found in the writings of all Calvinistic 
divines. It is, indeed, a curious circumstance, — and it has been 
often referred to, in opposition to the attempts which have been 
made to deduce from this portion of the Article an argument 
against the Calvinism of its leading position, — that the second and 
most important part of this statement, which virtually includes or 
comprehends the first, is expressed in the very words of Calvin;* 
while the first part of it is to ? be found, in its whole substance 
and spirit, in many parts of his writings. We concede to the 
Arminians that the word generally, here, is not to be taken in 
the sense of usually or ordinarily, but is intended to indicate the 
character of the promises as set forth in Scripture in a general, 
indefinite, unlimited, unrestricted way. There is nothing in this, 
however, which renders any service to their cause. The word 
promises is to be taken here, as it was used by the Reformers in 
general, in a wider sense than that in which it is commonly em- 
ployed in more modern times. The Reformers generally used 
this word as comprehending all the offers and invitations of the 
gospel addressed to men in general, — to sinners as such, — freely 
offering to them all the blessings of salvation, and inviting them 



* Inst. lib. i. c. 17, s. 5. 



592 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

to come to God through Christ, that they may receive and enjoy 
these blessings. In modern times, the word promises is commonly 
taken in a more restricted sense, as descriptive of those scriptural 
statements which are addressed specially to believers, — to those 
who have already been united to Christ by faith, — and which 
assume that this is their present position. But the word as used 
in the Article plainly comprehends, and, indeed, has special refer- 
ence to, what we now commonly call the offers and invitations of 
the gospel, or those scriptural statements which tell the human 
race of the provision which God has made for saving them ; and 
on this ground call npon them to turn from sin unto God, to be- 
lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ, and to lay hold of the hope set 
before them. Now, the substance of what is taught in the Article 
is this, that these offers and invitations are set forth to us in Scrip- 
ture in a general or universal form, — no restriction being made, 
no exception being put forth, no previous qualification being re- 
quired as a condition of accepting them, — and that we must deal 
with, or apply them, in this their general or unrestricted character, 
without bringing in, at this stage, either the general doctrine of 
predestination, or its possible, but wholly unknown, bearing upon 
individuals, in order to modify or limit the general scriptural 
representations, or the manner in which they ought to be dealt 
with. Here, neither the general doctrine of predestination, nor 
its imagined bearing upon individuals, has any proper place, or 
can exert any legitimate practical influence. The offers and in- 
vitations must be set forth as they stand, in all their unrestricted 
generality, and should be dealt with unhesitatingly, according to 
their natural and obvious meaning and import. This is all that 
is involved in the first part of the statement we are considering ; 
and to all this Calvinists have no hesitation in assenting. They 
set forth the general offers and invitations of the gospel addressed 
to mankind at large, in order to lead them from darkness to light; 
they do all this as freely and fully, as cordially and earnestly, 
as any other class of theologians ; and they think they can show 
that it cannot be proved that there is anything in all this incon- 
sistent with the peculiar doctrines they hold. 

We have said that the second part of this statement about 
the "will of God" virtually includes the first part about the 
" promises." And the reason is this, that the promises — that is, 
the offers and invitations of the gospel — virtually comprehend or 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 593 

involve commands or injunctions, and of course impose duties and 
obligations. The offers and invitations of the gospel are intended 
to lead men to repent and believe, by setting before them motives 
and encouragements to persuade them to do so. But they at the 
same time include or imply a command, that those to whom they 
are addressed should receive them and deal with them according 
to their true nature and import. God has made this their impera- 
tive duty, by explicit injunctions contained in His word. " To 
escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth 
of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent 
use of all the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ com- 
municateth to us the benefits of redemption." It is true, indeed, 
that the right mode of representing and applying the offers and 
invitations of the gospel is of such transcendent importance, from 
its direct and immediate bearing on the only process by which 
sinners individually are saved, that it was proper to state it 
distinctly by itself, and to give it the fullest prominence. But it 
is not the less true, that the substance of what ought to be said 
upon this topic is virtually comprehended in the wider statement, 
which the compilers of the Articles expressed in the words of 
Calvin, — viz. " that, in our doings, that will of God is to be 
followed which we have expressly declared to us in the word of 
God." The general import of this position is, that our whole con- 
duct is to be regulated, in all matters bearing upon our relation to 
God and our eternal welfare, by the laws, injunctions, or commands 
which are imposed upon us in Scripture ; and not by anything 
which we may or can know as to God's purposes or intentions 
with respect either to ourselves or others, or with respect to any 
events or results that may be anticipated. This is manifestly a 
sound principle ; and no intelligent Calvinist has ever refused or 
hesitated to assent to it, and to act upon it. There have, indeed, 
been great disputes between the Calvinists and the Arminians in 
regard to the will of God — voluntas Dei ; and the right exposition 
of this subject may be said to enter vitally and fundamentally into 
the controversy between them. But the disputes do not turn upon 
the point with which we have at present to do. Calvinists agree 
with Arminians in holding that the exclusive rule of our duty — 
of what we are bound to do — is that will of God which is plainly 
set forth in His word in the form of injunctions or commands. 
The language employed in the Article — " that will of God " — 

VOL. I. 38 



594 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

naturally suggests the idea that there is another will of God be- 
sides what is here described, or another sense in which the ex- 
pression may be employed ; and it is about this other will that a 
great deal of controversy has been carried on. We cannot enter 
on the consideration of this topic, though it is very important in 
itself, and though there are indications that it is very ill under- 
stood by some in the present day who call themselves Calvinists. 
We have room only for a few words, not upon the subject itself, 
but merely upon some of the terms commonly used in the discus- 
sion of it. 

w That will of God which we have expressly declared to us in 
His word," and which is universally admitted to be the exclusive 
rule of our duty, is called by Calvinistic divines by a variety of 
designations. They call it voluntas prcecepti, voluntas revelata, 
voluntas signi, voluntas evapeana^. These are just four different 
designations for one and the same thing ; presenting it in some- 
what different aspects, but all of them equally intended to indicate 
that will of God which is set forth in His word by injunctions 
and commands, and constitutes the sole rule of our duty. But 
Calvinists have always contended that there is another will of 
God, indicated by events or results as they take place. They hold 
that all events are foreordained by God, and that, of course, all 
events, when they take place, indicate what God had resolved to 
bring about, or at least to permit ; and may thus be regarded as 
being, in some sense, manifestations of His will. This will of God, 
by which He regulates events or results, is quite distinct from 
that will by which He imposes duties and obligations ; and yet it 
must be admitted to be a reality, — to have an existence and an 
efficacy, — unless He is to be shut out, not only from foreseeing 
and foreordaining, but from determining and regulating, the 
whole course of events which constitute the history of the world. 
This will of God, also, Calvinists usually designate by four diffe- 
rent names, corresponding, but contrasted, with the four applied to 
the divine will in the former sense. They call it voluntas decreti, 
voluntas arcana, voluntas beneplaciti, voluntas euSo/aa?. These, 
too, are just four different designations of one and the same thing, 
— viz. that will of God by which He determines events or results. 
And about the divine will, in this sense, there has been a good 
deal of discussion, an acquaintance with which is indispensably 
necessary to an intelligent knowledge of this great controversy. 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 595 

Arminians usually deny that events or results, simply as such, 
are to be regarded as furnishing a manifestation of the divine will ; 
and appeal, in support of this view, to the conditional form in 
which predictions and promises about future events are frequently 
put in Scripture, — the conditions attached proving, as they allege, 
that God had formed no absolute purpose to bring about a certain 
result, and thus showing that the actual result, when it does occur, 
is not necessarily to be regarded as -being, in any sense, an indica- 
tion of the divine will. The fundamental principle of Calvinism 
is, that God hath unchangeably foreordained whatsoever cometh 
to pass ; and if this principle be true, then there can be no strict 
and proper conditionally attaching to any events or results, as 
if their actual occurrence were really suspended upon causes or 
influences which God had not resolved to regulate and control. 
Calvinists accordingly deny that there is any true and proper 
conditionality in the divine predictions and promises ; the condi- 
tional or hypothetical form in which they are often set forth in 
Scripture, being intended merely to indicate a fixed connection 
established in God's purpose between means and end, and being 
designed, by indicating this connection, to exert a moral influence 
upon the minds of men, and thereby to contribute to bring about 
the result contemplated. Arminians object vehemently to the 
distinction which Calvinists make between the preceptive and 
revealed or declared will of God, and what they commonly call 
His decretive and secret will, — the will of His good pleasure, — as 
if this were to ascribe to God two opposite and contradictory wills. 
But there is really no opposition or contradiction between them. 
His preceptive will, which is revealed or declared, stands out, as 
all admit, on the face of Scripture, in the injunctions or commands 
which constitute the only rule of our duty. But His decretive 
will— voluntas decreti, or beneplaciti — must also be admitted as a 
reality, unless He is to be excluded from the determination and 
control of events. And when Calvinists call this will of decree 
or of good pleasure, by which He determines actual events or 
results, His secret will, as distinguished from His revealed or 
declared will, by which He determines duties and imposes obliga- 
tions, they just mean, that it is in every instance (except where 
God has issued a prediction or a promise) utterly unknown to' us, 
until the event takes place, and, by its occurrence, reveals or 
declares to us what God had resolved to do, or at least to permit. 



596 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

And there is surely nothing in all this but the statement of an 
undeniable matter of fact. Unless it be denied that the divine 
will has a determining influence in bringing about events or re- 
sults, we must introduce some distinctions into the exposition of 
this matter; and there is no difficulty in showing that the Calvinistic 
distinction between the preceptive or revealed, and the decretive or 
secret, will of God, is much more accordant with Scripture, and 
liable to much less serious objections, than the distinction which 
Arminians set up in opposition to it, between an antecedent or 
conditional, and a consequent or absolute will, — made absolute, of 
course, only by the fulfilment of the conditions. 

It has been stated of late, that the older Calvinistic writers 
maintained the conditional character of the prophetic announce- 
ments, in opposition to those who asserted their absolute and un- 
changeable fixedness ; and that, by the distinction which they were 
accustomed to make between the secret and the revealed will of 
God, they meant a distinction between His real intention or decree, 
which is fixed and immutable, and His declared purpose, which 
may vary from time to time with the changeful conditions of man. 
We have never met with these views among the older Calvinistic 
writers ; and we venture to assert that such statements as these 
indicate very great ignorance and misconception, as to the grounds 
usually taken by Calvinistic divines in expounding and defending 
the fundamental principles of their system of theology. But we 
cannot discuss this subject, though it is naturally suggested by the 
statement on which we have been commenting. We think we 
have said enough to show that the concluding portion of the 17th 
Article not only contains nothing which has any appearance of 
inconsistency with Calvinism, but even furnishes a presumption 
that it was indeed the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, and 
no other, which. the leading portion of the Article was intended to 
set forth. 

We have had repeated occasion, in dealing with such questions 
as these, to advert to the important and useful influence of con- 
troversial discussions, as exhibited in the history of the church, in 
throwing light upon the true meaning of Scripture, and the real 
import and evidence of the doctrines which are taught there. We 
have endeavoured to enforce the obligation, incumbent upon all 
men, to improve past controversies, for the purpose of aiding them 
in forming the most accurate, precise, and definite conceptions 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 597 

upon every subject which the Bible brings under our notice ; and 
we have referred to the great Calvinistic systematic divines of the 
seventeenth century, as the best specimens of the improvement 
that may and should be made of the fruits and results of polemical 
discussion, in bringing out a correct and exact exposition of all the 
doctrines taught in Scripture, in their mutual bearings and rela- 
tions. But everything is liable to abuse and perversion. There 
are everywhere dangers, both on the right hand and the left, to 
which men are exposed, from the weakness and imperfection of 
their faculties, and the corrupting influences from without and 
from within, that often tell upon the formation of their opinions 
and impressions of things, tending to produce defect or excess, 
and frequently, even when there may not be much of positive 
error, leading to onesidedness of conception, in the direction either 
of narrowness or exaggeration. Though a man may be well 
versant in some departments of theological literature, we can 
scarcely regard him as entitled to the character of a theologian, 
unless he be familiar with the works of the great systematic 
divines of the seventeenth century, both Calvinistic and Arminian. 
But an addiction to the study of systematic theology, and to the 
perusal of systems, has, unless it be carefully regulated, its 
obvious and serious dangers, which ought to be diligently and 
assiduously guarded against. No one class of men are to be im- 
plicitly followed, as if they were in all respects models for our 
imitation, with reference to all the objects which we are called 
upon to aim at. No uninspired men, or body of men, have ever, 
in the formation and expression of their opinions, risen altogether, 
and in every respect, above the influences of their position and 
circumstances. 

Controversial discussions have a strong and invariable tendency 
to lead those who have been engaged in them, to form an exag- 
gerated impression of the magnitude of the topics about which 
they have exercised their faculties, and spent their time and 
strength, and for which they may have contended unto victory. 
And it is usually not until another generation has arisen that 
men are enabled to gather up fully the fruits of the contest, and 
to apply its results to the formation of a sound and judicious 
estimate, not only of the truth, but of the importance of the 
questions involved in it, and of the best and most effective way of 
defending the truth and exposing the error. No intelligent and 



598 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X. 

judicious Calvinist will probably dispute, that the great contro- 
versy which Arminius raised in the beginning of the seventeenth 
century, produced the effect of bringing the peculiar doctrines of 
Calvinism into a position of something like undue prominence, — 
a greater prominence than they have in the Bible, or than they 
ought to have, ordinarily and permanently, in the thoughts of 
men, and in the usual course of pulpit instruction. We have no 
doubt that the fair result of that great controversy was to estab- 
lish conclusively the scriptural truth of all the peculiar doctrines 
of Calvinism. But it does not follow from this that the Cal- 
vinists, who so decidedly triumphed over their opponents on the 
field of argument, entirely escaped the ordinary influence of 
controversy, and succeeded in retaining as sound an estimate 
of the comparative importance, as of the actual truth, of the 
doctrines for which they had been led to contend. There can 
be no reasonable doubt that the peculiarities of Calvinism were 
raised for a time to a position of undue prominence, and that 
there are plain indications of this in some of the features of 
the theological literature of the seventeenth century. We cannot 
dwell upon this point ; but we may refer, as an illustration of 
what we mean, to the marked difference, as to the prominence 
given to the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, between the Institu- 
tions of Calvin himself and the theological systems of the great 
Calvinistic divines to whom we have referred. We have the 
highest sense of the value, for many important purposes, of these 
theological systems ; but we cannot doubt that Calvin's Institu- 
tions is fitted to leave upon the mind a juster and sounder im- 
pression of the place which the doctrines of Calvinism hold in the 
Bible, and ought to hold permanently in the usual course of pulpit 
instruction, or in the ordinary preaching of the gospel. 

We have made these observations, not certainly because we 
have an impression that there is a tendency among us generally, 
or in any influential quarters, to give undue prominence to the 
peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, but because it has been alleged 
of late that professed Calvinists do not now give so much promi- 
nence to their peculiar doctrines as was commonly assigned to 
them in former times, and that this affords evidence that Cal- 
vinism has been greatly modified, if not practically abandoned. 
Our object is just to indicate how the fact founded on, in so far 
as it is a reality, may be accounted for, in perfect consistency 



Essay X.] PRACTICAL • APPLICATION. 599 

with what we believe to be true, — viz. that professed Calvinists 
are still thoroughly persuaded of the scriptural truth of the 
peculiarities of Calvinism, and are resolved to maintain and apply 
them, according to their true nature and importance, in their due 
proportions, and in their right relations to the whole scheme of 
divine truth. 

We wish to remind our readers, in conclusion, that we have 
not professed or attempted to discuss the general subject of pre- 
destination, or to deal with its most important and fundamental 
departments. A full investigation of the whole subject would 
naturally divide itself into four branches, — viz. 1st, The settle- 
ment of the true status quwstionis, the real points in dispute 
between the contending parties; 2d, The examination of the 
scriptural evidence, direct and indirect, explicit and inferential, 
in favour of Calvinism, and in opposition to Arminianism ; 3d, 
The objections commonly adduced by Arminians against our real 
and admitted doctrines; and 4,th, The practical application of 
Calvinism. With the second of these branches of the subject — 
which is the most important and fundamental — we have not 
attempted to deal at all ; and to the third we have referred only 
in a very brief and incidental way, without professing to discuss 
it. Our observations have been almost wholly restricted to the 
first and fourth of these divisions, including a consideration of 
the objections commonly adduced against Calvinism, which are 
based upon misconceptions and misrepresentations of the true 
meaning and import, and of the practical application, of its 
doctrines. 



THE REFORMERS 



LESSONS FROM THEIR HISTORY, 



Haying spoken at length of the character of the Reformers, 
we mean to make a few general observations that may be fitted 
to suggest some useful practical lessons from the subject. It 
might afford materials for some interesting reflections, to notice the 
variety of gifts which God conferred upon the different Reformers 
individually, — bestowing upon one what another wanted, or did 
not possess in the same degree ; and thus providing, notwith- 
standing the infirmities of human nature, for their cordial co- 
operation, to a large extent, among themselves, in their different 
spheres, and also for enabling them to advance most fully, by 
their united labours and efforts, the success of the common cause. 
This would afford an interesting illustration of the abounding 
goodness and manifold wisdom of God ; but we must confine 
ourselves to some of those circumstances which were common to 
the Reformers in general, viewed as a class or body of men ; 
and we remark, 1st, That the Reformers in general were men 
eminently distinguished at once for the strength of their natural 
talents, and the extent of their acquired learning. That this was 
indeed the case, is too evident to admit of dispute, and has never 
been questioned even by their bitterest enemies. They were men 
possessed of such distinguished talents as would have raised them 
to eminence and influence in any department of study or occupa- 
tion to which they might have turned their attention ; and their 



* From Dr Cunningham's MS. Lectures on Church History. 



Essay XI.] 'THE REFORMERS AND THEIR HISTORY. 601 

writings and their labours abundantly establish this position. 
This was of course no merit of theirs, and affords no ground 
whatever why either they or others should boast. Its importance 
and value lie only in this, that it is a matter of fact that God 
selected, and qualified in other respects, for the work of restoring 
His truth and reforming His church, men whom He had gifted 
with very superior natural abilities. This was the Lord's doing, 
— this was the course which He pursued on that memorable occa- 
sion, and which He has ordinarily pursued in most important 
epochs, connected with the maintenance of His truth and the 
advancement of His cause. We are to look upon it as just what 
the Lord in His w T isdom was pleased to do, — as a thing effected, 
and of course intended, by Him in His actual administration of 
the affairs of the church and the world. We are to regard it in 
this light, as an undoubted reality, intended by Him, like all that 
He does, to make himself known, and to unfold and impress the 
principles of His moral government ; and, viewing the fact in this 
aspect, to consider what are the lessons which it is fitted to teach. 
It should lead men, of course, to estimate aright mental power 
and vigour as a valuable gift of God, intended by Him to be 
used, and often, employed by Him, in fact, in the advancement of 
His cause. This, however, is not a lesson which it is very neces- 
sary to inculcate ; for although occasionally fanatical exceptions 
do appear, the general and ordinary tendency of men is to over- 
estimate mere intellectual power, irrespective of the purposes to 
which it is applied — the objects to which it is directed. Still it is 
right to remember that God, by selecting as instruments for the 
restoration of His truth and the reformation of His church, men 
whom He had gifted with very superior intellectual powers, has 
thereby borne testimony to their value and importance, — has indi- 
cated the responsibility connected with the possession of them, and 
the purpose to which they ought to be chiefly applied ; while He 
has also, by the same fact, made it not only warrantable but in- 
cumbent upon all, to aim at the cultivation and improvement of 
the intellectual powers which He may have conferred, as a distinct 
and definite object, in subordination to His glory, and as a means 
of fitting Christians more fully for doing something for the ad- 
vancement of His cause. 

The fact that the Reformers were also, in general, men of ex- 
tensive acquired learning, admits of a more direct and obvious 



602 THE REFORMERS AND THE [Essay XI. 

practical application, as it reminds us of our obligation to improve 
to the uttermost our opportunities of acquiring useful knowledge, 
and encouraging us in the prosecution of this object by holding 
out the expectation, that the more knowledge we may be able to 
acquire, we may become the more useful in promoting His cause. 
God having in His wisdom selected for the work of reforma- 
tion men whom He had endowed, generally speaking, with very 
superior natural powers, — and whom He had united, or resolved in 
His own good time to unite, to Jesus Christ, by a true and living 
faith, — inspired them with a desire to acquire all the knowledge 
that might be useful in the prosecution of the work to which they 
were destined ; and so arranged, in His providence, the outward 
circumstances in which He placed them, that they had the means 
and opportunities of gratifying this desire. Thus He brought 
about the actual result, that they became, in point of fact, exten- 
sively learned in all matters connected with the work in which 
they were to be engaged ; while we find, also, that He was graci- 
ously pleased to employ the learning which they had acquired, or 
rather which He had bestowed upon them, as instrumental, in its 
place, in contributing in some measure to the promotion of His 
cause. The success of that cause is to be ascribed wholly to His 
own agency — the operation of His Spirit upon the minds and 
hearts of men ; but the full recognition of the agency of the Spirit 
as the only real author of the whole success, does not preclude the 
propriety of attending to and marking the instrumentality em- 
ployed, as exhibited in the men who were the instruments of bring- 
ing about the results, and in the various gifts as well as graces 
bestowed upon them and manifested in their work; and it is a fact, 
and one that ought certainly to be noticed and improved, that 
God, in selecting and preparing the instruments whom He was to 
employ in introducing and extending the Reformation, took care 
that they should be men who, speaking of them generally, had 
become possessed of a share of knowledge and learning, connected 
with all theological subjects, greatly superior to that of the great 
body of those by whom they were surrounded. The circle of 
science, in every department, was greatly more limited then than 
it is now, and the amount of attainable knowledge, by means of 
reading, greatly less. But the important consideration — that 
which involves a principle and teaches a lesson — is, that the 
Reformers were led to desire, and were furnished in providence 



Essay XI.] LESSONS FROM THEIR HISTORY. 603 

with the means of acquiring, a very large amount of the then 
attainable knowledge which was fitted to increase their influence 
and to promote their success, in establishing truth and in organiz- 
ing the church. Some of them held a very distinguished place 
among the scholars of the age in some departments of literature 
that were not exclusively professional. Calvin derived most im- 
portant advantages, with reference to the special work to which he 
was afterwards called, and the talents and habits which it required, 
from his having been led in providence in early life to go through 
a course of study in law and jurisprudence in two of the most 
eminent French universities. Melancthon and Beza were ac- 
knowledged as ranking among the most eminent Greek scholars 
of the period ; and brought at once that refinement of taste and 
elegancy of style which an acquaintance with classical literature 
tends to produce, and at the same time great philological learning, 
to bear upon the interpretation of Scripture and the defence of 
divine truth. Almost all of them were well read in the works of 
the principal writers of Greece and Some, — in the writings of 
the Fathers, and the history of the church, — and in the scholastic 
philosophers and theologians of the middle ages ; and this compre- 
hended nearly all the knowledge that was then generally acces- 
sible. All this knowledge they were enabled to acquire ; they 
employed it in the work to which they were called ; and they 
found that the possession and application of it contributed to 
promote the success of their labours. The lesson which this 
fact is fitted to teach is, that we should estimate highly the value 
of learning, as a means of promoting the interests of truth and 
righteousness ; and that we should feel it to be incumbent to 
acquire as much of knowledge and learning as opportunities will 
allow, especially of that knowledge and learning which bears 
most directly and immediately upon the various departments of 
labour in which we may be called upon to engage for the advance- 
ment of Christ's cause. 

In tracing the history of the lives of the leading Eeformers, 
we find that there is scarcely one of them who had not oppor- 
tunities afforded them in providence, at some period or other, of 
devoting a considerable portion of time to diligent and careful 
study. We find they faithfully improved these opportunities, — 
that they were in consequence able ever thereafter to bring out of 
their treasure things new and old, and were thus fitted for wider 



604 THE REFORMERS AND THE [Essay XT. 

and more extensive usefulness. In one aspect, indeed, the truest 
and highest test of the usefulness of men who have honestly de- 
voted themselves to the immediate service of God, may be said to 
be the number of souls whom they have directly been the instru- 
ments of converting. God has not unfrequently bestowed in 
large measure this highest usefulness upon men who were but 
slenderly furnished either with intellectual superiority or acquired 
knowledge ; and any man, however great his talents and acquire- 
ments, who has received many souls for his hire, may well be 
satisfied with his usefulness and the reward of it. But indepen- 
dently of the consideration, that in all probability God has never 
employed any man as an instrument of extensive good in His 
church whom He has not made the direct instrument of convert- 
ing some from the error of their ways and thereby saving their 
souls, it must be observed that there is a test of usefulness which 
may be regarded as in so?ne respects even higher than this, — when 
men are enabled to contribute to the wide diffusion of great 
scriptural principles or truths, the maintenance and success of a 
great scriptural cause, or the infusion of spiritual health and 
vigour into a dead or languid church. And in these high and 
diffusive departments of Christian usefulness, the Lord has usually 
been pleased to employ the services of men who had received from 
Him not only the gift of renewed hearts, but also superior in- 
tellectual powers, and of extensive and varied knowledge. So at 
least it certainly was at the era of the Reformation ; and the fact 
that God then took care that those whom He meant chiefly to 
employ in this important work, did in fact acquire extensive 
learning, which they employed in His service, should teach the 
obligation incumbent upon all, of improving to the uttermost the 
opportunities afforded in providence of acquiring all useful know- 
ledge, and the sinfulness of neglecting them. 

But, in the second place, the history of the Reformers is fitted 
to teach a lesson, by exhibiting a striking example of unwearied 
activity and industry. They were not mere students and authors, 
they were diligent and laborious workers. As students they ac- 
quired a large stock of learning ; as writers they have transmitted 
to us a great mass of valuable authorship ; while at the same time 
most of them had a great amount of ordinary practical work and 
business to attend to, and to discharge, in the different situations 
in which they were placed. Most of them were voluminous 



Essay XT.] LESSONS FROM THEIR HISTORY. 605 

authors, and have left behind them productions, the mere tran- 
scription of which we, with our low standard of industry and 
labour, are apt to think might be work for a lifetime. The works 
of the different Reformers exhibit, of course, in different degrees, 
evidence of care and elaboration in point of thought and diction ; 
but they have almost all bequeathed productions which must have 
occupied a great deal of time, and required a great deal of thought 
and pains. And they were none of them retired students, with 
leisure to devote their time unbroken to reading, reflection, and 
composition. They were all busily engaged in the discharge of 
important public duties, as professors and teachers, as pastors of 
congregations, and organizers of churches, and in the ordinary 
administration of ecclesiastical affairs. They had a great public 
cause in hand, in the defence and maintenance of which they 
were called upon to take a part ; and this not only required of 
them the publication of works through the press, but must have 
entailed upon them a large amount of private correspondence and 
of personal dealing with men. They did not in general (Beza 
was an exception) attain to a great age, but they lived while they 
lived; and amid much to distract and harass them, they per- 
formed an amount of labour, physical and intellectual, the con- 
templation of which is usefully fitted to humble us under a sense 
of our imbecility, inactivity, and laziness, and to stir up to more 
strenuous and persevering exertion. Zwingle was cut off at the 
age of forty-seven ; and yet, besides doing a great deal of work, 
not only as pastor and professor of theology in Zurich, but as 
the leading Reformer (of the German portion) of Switzerland, 
he has left us four folio volumes of well-digested, well-composed 
matter, upon all the great theological topics that then occupied 
the public mind. And what a life was Calvin's ! Though he 
lived only fifty-four years, and struggled during a large portion 
of it with a very infirm state of bodily health, and with much 
severe disease, half his life was well-nigh spent before the Lord 
brought him to Geneva, and called him to engage in the public 
service of His church. But how much was he enabled during 
the remainder of his life to do and to effect ! Though engaged 
incessantly in the laborious duties of a pastor and professor of 
theology, he was called upon to give his counsel and advice, 
by personal applications and by written correspondence, upon 
almost every important question, speculative or practical, that 



606 THE REFORMERS AND THE [Essay XI. 

affected the interests of the reformed cause throughout Europe ; 
and yet he has left many folio volumes (in one edition nine, and 
in another twelve), full of profound and admirably-digested think- 
ing upon the most important and difficult of all subjects, — exhi- 
biting much patient consideration and great practical wisdom, 
clothed in pure and classical Latin ; forming also (for some of 
them were written in French, and several, as the " Institutions," 
both in Latin and French), in the estimation of eminent French 
critics, who had no liking to his theology or his ecclesiastical 
labours, an era in the improvement of the language of the 
country which had the honour to give him birth. We are too 
apt to think, in these degenerate times, that a reasonable and not 
very exalted measure of diligence and activity in some one parti- 
cular department, whether of study or of practical labour, is all 
that can be fairly expected ; but the example of the Reformers 
should show that it is possible, through God's grace, to do much 
more ; should teach a lesson of the value of time, and of the obli- 
gation to husband and improve it ; and constrain all to labour, 
with unwearied zeal and diligence, expecting no rest here, but 
looking, as they did, to the rest that remaineth for the people of 
God. 

The third and last lesson suggested by the history and con- 
duct of the Reformers is, the necessity and importance of giving 
much time and attention to the study of the word of God. The 
Reformers were all led by God, at an early period in their history, 
to give careful attention to the study of the sacred Scriptures ; and 
they were guided by His Spirit to form correct views of the great 
leading principles which are there unfolded. They were led to 
continue ever after to study them with care and diligence ; and 
they persevered in applying them to comfort their hearts amid all 
their trials and difficulties, and to guide them in the regulation of 
their conduct. It is very evident, from surveying the history and 
the writings of the Reformers, that their strength and success — 
both as defenders of divine truth and maintainors of God's cause, 
and also as men engaged, amid many difficulties, in the practical 
business of the church and the world, and in the administration of 
important affairs — arose very much from their familiar and inti- 
mate acquaintance with the word of God, the whole word of God. 
They were familiar with the meaning and application of its state- 
ments, and they were deeply imbued with its spirit. The word of 



Essay XL] LESSONS FROM THEIR HISTORY. 607 

God dwelt in them richly, in all wisdom and spiritual understand- 
ing, and thus became " a light unto their feet, and a lamp unto 
their path." It is an interesting fact, and is one proof and mani- 
festation of their deep and careful study of the word of God, that 
many of the leading Reformers have left, amid their other volu- 
minous productions and abundant labours, commentaries upon the 
whole, or a large portion of, the sacred Scriptures. We have 
eight or nine commentaries upon the whole, or large portions of, 
the Old and New Testaments, — the productions of as many of the 
most eminent and laborious of the Reformers ; and this fact of 
itself, proves the large amount of thought and attention which 
they were accustomed to devote to the study of them, and the 
great familiarity which they had acquired with them. To write a 
commentary upon the Scriptures, which should really possess any 
value or utility, implies that they have been made the subject of 
much deep study and much careful meditation, as well as fervent 
prayer for divine direction. The commentaries of the Reformers 
upon the sacred Scriptures are, of course, possessed of different 
degrees of value and excellence, according to the different gifts 
and qualifications of the men, and the time and pains which they 
were able to bestow upon them, — and here, as in everything else 
connected with the exposition and application of the whole truth 
of God, Calvin towers far above them all ; yet, as a whole, they 
fully vindicate what we have said of their talents, learning, and 
general character, and fully prove that they were eminently 
qualified for discerning and opening up the mind of God in His 
word, and that they devoted a large portion of time and attention 
to investigating the meaning of the sacred Scriptures, to forming 
clear and definite conceptions of the import of their statements, 
and to bringing them out for the instruction and improvement of 
others. There is reason to fear, that, since the period of the 
Reformation, the careful study of the word of God itself has 
not usually received the share of time and attention which its 
importance demands. There has always been, and there still is, 
too much time and attention, comparatively, given to the perusal 
and study of other books connected with theological subjects, 
and too little to the study of the inspired volume. We know in 
general but little of the word of God as it ought to be known, 
and we are very much disposed to remain in contented ignorance 
of what God has written for our instruction. We are dependent 



608 THE REFORMERS AND THEIR HISTORY. [Essay XI. 

for all true knowledge of the word of God upon the agency of 
the Divine Spirit, but that Spirit we are but little concerned to 
implore. We are dependent also, for the attainment of this know- 
ledge, upon our own personal study of the sacred Scriptures, — 
upon bringing all the powers of our minds to bear upon the in- 
vestigation of their meaning, and giving to this study no incon- 
siderable portion of our time and attention. But we almost all 
continue to be chiefly occupied with other pursuits, and with the 
perusal of other books, while but a fraction of our time is given to 
the study of the Bible ; and this too often without much sense 
of the solemnity and responsibility of the occupation, and with- 
out even our ordinary powers of attention and application being 
brought into full and vigorous exercise. Now all this is, in the 
first place, a sin, because it is the neglect and violation of a plain 
and undoubted duty ; and then it has a powerful tendency to 
diminish the vigour and check the progress of the divine life in 
the soul, and to enfeeble and paralyze all efforts, in commending 
with efficacy and success, divine truth to others. The Lord was 
pleased to lead the Reformers to a careful study of His word, and 
to guide them to correct views of its leading principles. He quali- 
fied them largely for opening up and expounding its statements 
to others ; He led them to give much time and attention to this 
occupation, and made their labours in this department, orally and 
by waiting, the great means of their usefulness and success ; and 
we may be assured that it will be to a large extent through 
our capacity to open up and understand the whole mind of God, 
as revealed in His word, — a capacity to be acquired only by fer- 
vent prayer and by diligent and continued study of the inspired 
volume itself, — that we shall best grow in grace and in the power 
of Christian usefulness. 



INDEX. 



Arnaulb — 

Views of, on faith, 137. 
Assurance, Doctrine of — 
Views of Reformers on, 111. 
Personal experience of Reformers as 

to, 113. 
Views of Romanists as to, 1 14. 
Extreme opinions of Reformers as to, 

115-117. 
Grounds of conviction as to a man's 

personal, 118, 119. 
Exaggerated statements of Luther 

and Calvin on personal, 119-121. 
Mis-statement by Sir William Hamil- 
ton as to doctrine of the Church of 

England on, 128-134. 
Mistakes by Sir William Hamilton as 

to history of the doctrine of, 135, 

et seq. 
The doctrine of, not the fundamen- 
tal principle of the Reformation, 

142. 
Deliverance of the Council of Trent 

on, 143, 144. 
Views of Bellarmine on, 144, 145. 
Practical duty of Christians as to, 

147, 148. 
Atonement — 

Views of Calvin on extent of, 395, et 

seq. 
Views of Beza on extent of, 395. 
Evidence that Calvin did not hold the 

doctrine of universal, 398, et seq. 

Baptism — 

Doctrine of the Shorter Catechism 
on, 242, et seq. 

Adult baptism the fundamental type 
of, 245, 246. 

Reformed Confessions contemplate 
the case of adult, in their definition 
of sacraments, 247, 248. 

Halley on the subjects of, 269. 

Relation between baptism and spiri- 
tual blessings, 271. 

Scriptural positions as to infant, 290. 

VOL. I. 



Baptismal Regeneration — 

Unfounded allegation by Phillpots 

that the Reformed Confessions 

teach, 241. 
Unfounded allegation that the West- 
minster Standards teach, 241. 
Bellarmine — 

Views of, on Assurance, 144, 145. 
Beza — 

Essay on, 345. 

Character and position of, 345, 346. 

Accusations against the character of, 

by Romanists, 346-348. 
Works of, controversial and occa- 
sional, 348, 349. 
Differences between theological views 

of Calvin and of, 349, 350, 358, 

364, 371, 395, 402. 
Views of, on the Erastian and Pre- 

latic controversies, 350, 351. 
Services of, in exegetical theology, 

352, et seq. 
Unfounded charges by Dr Campbell 

against, as a Scripture interpreter, 

353-358. 
Views of, on the imputation of Adam's 

sin, 376. 
Views of, on extent of the atonement, 

395. 

BOSSUET — 

Character of, as a controversialist, 86. 

Argument of his History of the Varia- 
tions, and reply to it by Basnage, 87. 

Unfairness of, when the interests of 
the church were concerned, 88, 89. 

Calvin — 

Injustice done to him by Dr Tulloch, 
11. 

Testimonies to his character, pub- 
lished by the Calvin Translation 
Society, 12. 

His discussion with Pighius on the 
bondage of the will, 25. 

Doctrine of, on the organization of 
the church, 27, 28. 



610 



INDEX. 



C ALT IN 

. Exaggerated statements of, and 
Luther, on personal assurance, 119- 
121. 

Lawrence's opinion of, and his doc- 
trines, 179. 

Influence of, on the English Refor- 
mers, 181. 

Essay on, 292. 

Character and services of, as a Refor- 
mer, 294. 

Institutes of, 295, 296. 

Eminence of, in exegetical and sys- 
tematic theology, 297, 298. 

Testimonies to eminence of character 
of, 299, 300. 

Attacks upon the character of, 301, 
302. 

Imperfection of character of, SOS- 
SOS. 

Conduct of, when banished from 
Geneva, as to ministers left behind, 
306, et seq. 

Evidence of strong affection and for- 
bearance on the part of, from his 
letters, 313, 314. 

Share of, in the death of Servetus, 
314, et seq. 

Considerations to be kept in view in 
judging of his conduct in the mat- 
ter, 318-321. 

Charges and misrepresentations of 
Mr Wallace against, 321, et seq. 

Unfavourable and unfair view by Dr 
Tulloch of the conduct of, 327, et 
seq. 

Refutation of charges by Dr Tulloch 
against, 329, et seq. 

Unfounded allegation of presump- 
tuous speculation in divine things 
brought against, 333, et seq. 

Substance of the Reformation aimed 
at by, 335. 

The grand heresy of the mediaeval 
and Romish religions that was op- 
posed by, 337, et seq. 

Views of, as to the unlawfulness of 
human appointments in the worship 
and government of the church, 
342-344. 

Views of," on Sublapsarians and Supra - 
lapsarians, 364-366. 

Views of, on the imputation of Adam's 
sin, 371, et seq., 379. 

Views of, on the extent of the atone- 
ment, 395, et seq. 

Evidence tbat the doctrine of univer- 
sal atonement was not held by, 
398, et seq. 

Views of, on justification, 402, et seq. 

Opinion of, on free-will, 486-488. 



Calvinism — 
The fundamental principle of, 201, 

434, et seq. 
Teaching of, on the purposes of God 

in regard to those who perish, 210. 
Doctrines of, held by Zwingle, 222- 

224. 
The principles of, alone give the true 

place to the Eather, the Son, and 

the Holy Ghost, in the salvation of 

sinners, 339-341. 
Essay on, 413. 
Concessions by Dr Whately to, 414, 

454, 463. 
Denial by Dr Whately that he holds 

the doctrine of, 415. 
Views of Eaber on, 419, et seq. 
Status qucestionis between, and Armi- 

nianism, 420. 
Baro on, 426. 
Arminius on, 426. 
Plaifere on, 427. 
Mozley on, 429, 430. 
Westminster Confession on, 431. 
Questions discussed by divines under 

the head of, 432. 
Synod of Dort on, 435. 
Conclusions as to what is, and what 

Arminianism, 449. 
Rules as to the application of the de- 
signations of, and Arminianism, 

450-452. 
Difficulties of, and replies to them, 

466-470. 
Predestination in the system of, not 

to be identified with philosophical 

necessity, 508, et seq. 
Essay on the practical application of, 

525. 
The doctrines of, alone give the pro- 
per place to the work of Christ and 

the agency of the Spirit, 528, 

529. 
The doctrines of, opposed to the ten- 
dencies and feelings of unrenewed 

man, 529. 
Evidence for, founded upon Scripture 

statements, and not consequences, 

529, 530. 
The objections to, the same as those 

referred to by Paul, 530, 531. 
Connection between election and 

reprobation in the system of, 532, 

et seq. 
Unfair use made by Arminians of 

the connection between election 

and reprobation in the system of, 

532, et seq. 
Unfair procedure by Arminians in 

the Synod of Dort in arguing 

against, 538, 539. 



INDEX. 



611 



Calvinism — 

Unfair attack upon, by Hoard, 539, 
540. 

Reply to Hoard's attack upon, by 
Davenant, 541, et seq. 

Unfairness of John Wesley in his 
attack on, 546, 554, 559. 

Substance of what its intelligent ad- 
herents believe on the subject of, 
547, 548. 

Leading objections brought against 
the doctrines of, 549. 

General misrepresentation by Ar- 
minians of the doctrines of, 551. 

The means and the end equally fore- 
ordained according to the system 
of, 552, et seq. 

Misrepresentation of the argument 
on, by Richard Watson, 559-565. 

Chalmers on the foreordination of 
means and ends in the system of, 
559-561. 

Whately on the foreordination of 
means and ends in the system of, 
565. 

Unfounded allegation by Whately 
that the doctrines of, have no prac- 
tical influence, 566, et seq. 

Rules to be observed in the discussion 
of the practical application of, 570. 

Substance of what is to be believed 
as to the personal application of 
the doctrines of, 573, 574, et seq. 

Westminster Confession on the prac- 
tical application of the doctrines of, 
578, et seq. 

Unfounded allegation by Whately 
that the 17th Article of the Church 
of England denies any practical 
application of the doctrine of elec- 
tion in the system of, 581, et seq. 

Remarks on the 17th Article of the 
Church of England in connection 
with, 591, et seq. 

Distinctions as to the " Will of God" 
in the system of, 595. 

Conditional character of prophecy 
not asserted, but denied, by intel- 
ligent defenders of, 596. 

Practical effects of the discussions on 
the doctrines of, 597, 598. 

Eour branches into which a full dis- 
cussion of the doctrines of, would 
divide itself, 599. 
Campbell, Dr — 

Views of Reformation by, 3. 

Charges by, against Beza as a Scrip- 
ture interpreter, 353-358. 
Chalmers — 

Views of, on faith, 122. 

Views of, on imputation, 384. 



Chalmers — 

Attack on, by Sir William Hamilton, 
as to philosophical necessity, 471, 
472, 476, 477. 

Views of, on philosophical necessitv, 
472, 476, 477, 478, 481, 483, 488, 
490, 492, 495, 508, 513, 516. 

Views of, as to the foreordination of 
means and ends in the system of 
Calvinism, 559-561. 
Church — 

Doctrine of Calvin on organization 
of, 27, 28. 

Different opinions as to what Scripture 
teaches on the organization of, 29. 

Dr Tulloch's views as to the teaching 
of Scripture on the organization of 
the, 29, 30. 

Two views generally held by Refor- 
mers on the organization of, offen- 
sive to Latitudinarians, 31. 

The Calvinistic Reformers held that 
nothing was lawful in, without 
Scripture warrant, 32. Scripture 
evidence for this truth, 33. 

Human inventions in, injurious, 34. 
Importance of this principle, 35. 
Practical effect of this principle in 
shutting out superstitious rites and 
ceremonies, 36, 37. 

Jus divinum of a particular form of 
government in, 37. 

Fundamental principles revealed, but 
not details of government of, 38. 

A priori reasonings unsatisfactory for 
a jus divinum of government in, 40. 

Scripture principle and apostolic 
practice furnish evidence for a par- 
ticular form of government in, 41. 

Reasons against a jus divinum by Dr 
Tulloch, 42. 

Claim to a, jus divinum not unreason- 
able or intolerant, 43, 44. 

In some sense the representative of 
Christ upon earth, 54. 

Perversion of this doctrine by Papists, 
54. Tendency of this doctrine to 
lead to persecution on the part of 
Romanists, 55. 

Views of Calvin as to the unlawful- 
ness of human appointments in the 
worship and government of, 342, 
344. 
Church op England — 

Mis-statement by Sir William Hamil- 
ton as to doctrine of, on assurance, 
128, 134. 

Doctrinal sense of the Articles of, 
164, 167. 

Calvinism of the early divines of, 168, 
192. 



612 



INDEX. 



Church of England— 
Waterland on the Calvinism of, 171, 

172. 
Hill on the Calvinism of, 173. 
, Kippling on the Calvinism of, 174. 
, Lawrence on the Calvinism of, 175. 
Tomline on the Calvinism of, 175, 422. 
Goode on the Calvinism of, 176, 177. 
Wilberforce on the Calvinism of, 177, 

178. 
Calvinism of the 17th Article of, 193, 

195. 
Perversion by Tomline of the 17th 

Article of, 195. 
Misinterpretation by Lawrence of the 

17th Article of, 196, 197. 
Comparison between the 17th Article 

of, and Melancthon's Common- 
places, 198. 
Fallacy of the reasons for denying the 

Calvinism of the Articles of, 203- 

206. 
Defective and indefinite views of the 

evangelical clergy of, 208, 209. 
Magee on the Calvinism of, 422. 
Bode on the Calvinism of, 424. 
Burnet on the Calvinism of, 428. 
Browne on the Calvinism of, 429. 
Church op Rome — 
Pelagian views in, before the Refor- 
mation, 183-185. 
Alleged Calvinism in, before the 

Reformation, 187, 188. 
Doctrine of, on the sacraments, 233, 

234. 
Views of, on the imputation of 

Adam's sin, 377, 378. 
Confessions — 
Views of Reformed, on saving faith, 

124, 125. 

Dort, Synod of — 

Deliverance of, on Sublapsarians and 

Supralapsarians, 367-369. 
Views of, on Calvinism, 435. 

Edwards, Jonathan — 

Views of, on original sin, 372. 

Views of, on imputation, 384. 

Views of, in the Westminster Confes- 
sion, 490. 

Opinions of, on philosophical neces- 
sity, 483, 484, 488, 489, 492, 494, 
495, 504, 506. 
Election — 

Views of Arminians on, 437, 441. 

Two questions of importance in re- 
gard to, 440. 

Faber'sfour different doctrines on, 441. 

Views of Locke on, 442. 

Views of Sumner on, 442. 



Election — 

Three positions held by Calvinists as 
to, 442, et seq. 

Whately's views on, 447, 448. 

Difference between Whately and Sum- 
ner on, 448. 

Amesius on the difference between, 
and Reprobation, 550. 

Unfounded allegation by Whately, 
that the 17th Article of the Church 
of England denies any practical 
application of the doctrine of, in 
the system of Calvinism, 581, et seq. 

Faith— 

Views of Romanists on saving, 122. 

Views of Reformers on saving, 122, 
123. 

Mis-statements by Sir William Ha- 
milton as to views of the Reformers 
on, 126, 127. 

Views of Le Blanc on, 136-140. 

Views of Arnauld on, 137. 

Views of Jurieu on, 139. 

Views of Chalmers on, 122. 

Hamilton, Sir William — 

His attack on the character of the 
Reformers, 60. 

His attacks upon Luther, 74-76. 

His charge against Luther, as claim- 
ing personal infallibility, 77. 

Reply to the charge, 77, 78. 

Character of, as a controversialist, 
79. 

His extracts from the writings of 
Luther borrowed from Bossuet, 80, 
81. 

Incorrectness of his extracts from 
Luther, 81-83. 

Assaults by, on Archdeacon Hare, 
85, 86. 

His unfairness in dealing with Lu- 
ther's consent to the marriage of 
the Landgrave of Hesse, 92. 

His charge against Luther of preach- 
ing immorality, 99. 

His statements as to views of Re- 
formers on assurance, 111, 112. 

Mis-statements by, as to views of 
the Reformers on Faith, 126, 127. 

Mis-statement by, of the doctrine of 
the Church of England on assur- 
ance, 128, 134. 

Mistakes by, as to history of the doc- 
trine of assurance, 135, et seq. 

Misrepresentation by, of the doctrine 
of the Reformation as to justifica- 
tion, 146. 

His views on philosophical necessity, 
471-473. 



INDEX. 



613 



Hamilton, Sir William — 

Attack by, on Dr Chalmers as to 
philosophical necessity, 471, 472, 
476,477. 

The doctrine of philosophical neces- 
sity untruly alleged by, to be op- 
posed to Calvinism, 482. 
Hare, Archdeacon — 

Vindication of Luther by, 61. 

Qualifications of, as a defender of 
Luther, 62, 63. 

His character of Moehler's " Sym- 
bolism," 70, 71. 

Assaults upon, by Sir Wm. Hamilton, 
85, 86. 

His views of Luther's consent to the 
marriage of the Landgrave of 
Hesse, 93-95. 

Eemarks upon Hare's vindication of 
Luther in this matter, 96-98. 

His remarks on Hamilton's charge 
against Luther of preaching im- 
morality, 99. 

Imputation — 

Views of Calvin on, 371, et seq. 
Differences of opinion among those 

who have denied, 375. 
Views of Beza on, 376. 
Views of PlacEeus on, 379, et seq. 
Views of Westminster Confession on, 

382, 383. 
Views of Jonathan Edwards on, 384. 
Views of Chalmers on, 384. 
Views of Rogers on, 385, et seq. 
Views of Scripture on, 390, et seq. 
Argument by Dr Hodge on, 394. 

Justification — 

Dr Tulloch's statement of Luther's 

view of, 23. 
Westminster Confession on, 24, 405. 
Dr Tulloch holds that Scripture 

teaches no definite doctrine on, 

25. 
Exposition of the doctrine of, by 

Luther, 102-104. 
Misrepresentation by Sir William 

Hamilton of the doctrine of the 

Reformation as to, 146. 
Views of Melancthon on, 163. 
Views of Calvin on, 402, et seq. 

Luther — 

Dr Tulloch's statement of his doc- 
trine of justification, 23. 

His discussion with Erasmus on the 
bondage of the will, 25. 

Dr Tulloch's sketch of, 50. 

Criticism upon Dr Tulloch's sketch 
of, 51, 52. 



Luther — 
Essay on, 54. 
Vindication of, by Archdeacon Hare, 

61. 
Character of, 63. 

Services rendered by, to church, 64. 
Defects of the character of, 65. 
Defence of, as not being a father of 

the church, but the founder of a 

school, 66. 
Assaults upon, by Mr Ward, 67. 
Attack upon, by Mr Hallam, 67, 

68. 
Worst and most offensive passage in 

the writings of, 71, 72. 
Explanation and defence of this pas- 
sage, 72, 73. 
Attacks upon, by Sir Wm. Hamilton, 

74-76. 
Charged by Sir Wm. Hamilton with 

claiming personal infallibility, 77. 

Reply to the charge, 77, 78. 
Extracts from writings of, by Sir 

Wm. Hamilton, borrowed from 

Bossuet, 80, 81. Incorrectness of 

these extracts, 81-83. 
Rash and exaggerated expressions in 

the writings of, 83, 84. 
Consent of, to the marriage of the 

Landgrave of Hesse to a second 

wife while his first was alive, 89, 

90. 
His conduct in the matter not ap- 
proved by Protestants, 91. 
Unfairness of Sir Wm. Hamilton in 

dealing with it, 92. 
Hare's view of his conduct, 93-95. 
Remarks upon Hare's view, 96-98. 
Charge by Sir William against, for 

preaching immorality, 99. 
Remarks by Hare on this charge, 99. 
Claims of, as a man, upon our es- 
teem, 100. 
Claims of, on our gratitude for his 

services to the church, 101, 102. 
Exposition by, of the doctrine of 

justification, 102-104. 
Views of, on the Romish rites and 

ceremonies, 104, 105. 
Exaggerated statements by, on the 

law of God, 105, 106. 
Error of, in regard to the Lord's 

Supper, 106, 107. 
Changes in the opinions of, 107, 108. 
The Calvinistic principles of, 108- 

110. 
Exaggerated statements of Calvin 

and, on personal assurance, 119- 

121. 
Services of, in bringing out the true 

doctrine of justification, 337. 



614 



INDEX. 



Melancthon — 

Essay on, 149. 

New edition of the works of, 149. 

Character of, 152-154. 

Tendency of, to compromise scrip- 
tural truth, 155-158. 

The principal theological works of, 
160, 161. 

His early high predestinarian views 
abandoned by, 161, 162. 

Doctrine of justification not surren- 
dered by, 163. 

Parker Society — 

Works of, 150, 151. 
Philosophical Necessity — 
Essay on, 471. 
Sir William Hamilton on the doctrine 

of, 471-473. 
The doctrine of, untruly alleged by 

Hamilton to be opposed to Calvin- 
ism, 482. 
The doctrine of, not opposed to the 

Westminster Confession, 484, et 

seg. 
Opinions of Jonathan Edwards on' 

483, 484, 488, 489, 492, 494, 495' 

504, 506. 
The doctrine of, not to be identified 

with the doctrine of predestination, 

508, et seq. 
Sir James Mackintosh on, 512. 
Views of Dr Chalmers on, 472, 476, 

477, 478, 481, 483, 488, 490, 492, 

495, 508, 513, 516. 

Reformation, Leaders op, 1. 

Two views of, one negative and the 
other positive, 1. 

Negatively, a revolt against Rome, 
and authority in religious mat- 
ters, 2. 

Positively, an assertion of the autho- 
rity of Scripture and religious 
truth, 2. 

In its negative aspect commended 
by Rationalists and Latitudina- 
rians, 2. 

Views of, by Dr Robertson, 2. 

Views of, by Dr Campbell, 3. 

View of, by Wegscheider, 3. 

Character of Dr Tulloch's work on, 
8. 

Theology of, depreciated by Dr Tul- 
loch, 9. 

Account bv Dr Tulloch of the theo- 
logy of, "12-14. 

Theology of, substantilly identical 
with Calvinism, 14. 

Attack by Mr Isaac Taylor on the 
theology of, 18. 



Reformation, Leaders op — 

New theology expected by Dr Tul- 
loch and Mr Taylor to replace 

theology of, 19. 
The doctrine of assurance not the 

fundamental principle of, 142. 
Misrepresentation by Sir William 

Hamilton of the doctrine of, as to 

justification, 146. 
Reformers — 

Did not formally discuss the right of 

private judgment, 4. 
Their great object to find out the 

truth of God in His word, 4. 
Believed themselves to be contending 

for the cause of God, 5. 
View of, by Hallam, 5. 
Instruments in the hand of God for 

exposing corruptions of the Church 

of Rome, 6. 
Unanimity among, on articles of 

Christian faith, 7. 
Deference due to, 7. 
Their practice in regard to Scripture 

inferences disapproved of by Dr 

Tulloch, 20. 
Theological system of, disapproved 

of by Dr Tulloch, 21. 
Two views generally held by, on the 

organization of the church offen- 
sive to Latitudinarians, 31. 
The Calvinistic, held that nothing 

was lawful in the church without 

Scripture warrant, 32. Scripture 

evidence for this truth, 33. 
Views of, derived not from Augustine 

but from Scripture, 52. 
Slanders against, propagated by Ro- 
mish writers, 56. 
Allegation of Romanists that God 

would not use such men as the,. for 

His work, 57. Reply of Protestants 

to this allegation, 57. 
Method in which allegations against, 

ought to be dealt with, 58. 
Misrepresentation of, by others than 

Romanists, 59, 60. 
Attack on the character of, by Sir 

William Hamilton, 60. 
Doctrine of assurance as held by, 

111. 
Statement by Sir William Hamilton 

as to views of, on assurance, 111, 

112. 
Personal experience of, as to assur- 

rance, 113. 
Extreme opinions of, as to assurance, 

115-117. 
Views of, on saving faith, 122, 123. 
Confessions of, on saving faith, 124, 

125. 



INDEX. 



615 



Reformers — 
Mis-statements of Sir William Hamil- 
ton as to views of, on faith, 126, 

127. 
The great hody of the, Calvinists, 

189. 
Bullinger's influence on the English, 

190. 
Timidity of the English, 190, 191. 
Essay on the lessons from the history 

of, 600. 
Great natural talents of the, 600. 
Extensive learning of, 601. 
Talent and learning of, employed by 

God in the advancement of His 

work, 603, 604. 
Activity and industry of, 604-606. 
Attention to the study of the word of 

God by the, 606. 
Acquaintance with Scripture a great 

means of the usefulness and success 

of, 608. 

ROMANISTS — 

Views of, as to assurance and reli- 
gious certainty, 114. 
Views of, on saving faith, 122. 

Sacraments — 
Opinions of Zwingle on the subject 

of, 225-230. 
Corruption of the scriptural doctrine 

of, in the early church, 232. 
Doctrine of the Church of Rome on, 

233, 234. 
Protestant doctrine of, 234-237. 
Tendency among Protestant divines 

to overstate the importance of, 

240. 
Unfounded allegation by Phillpots, 

that the Reformed Confessions 

teach baptismal regeneration, 241. 
Unfounded allegation that the West- 
minster Standards teach baptismal 

regeneration, 241. 
Doctrine of the Shorter Catechism 

on, 242. 
Reformed Confessions contemplate 

the case of adult baptism in their 

definition of, 247, 248. 
Westminster Standards represent the, 

as intended for believers, 250-252. 
Two aspects of, 253, 254. 
Sacraments are signs and seals, 254, 

255. 
Meaning of participation in, 256-258, 

270. 
Romish doctrine, that the grace signi- 
fied by, is contained in, 260. 
Parties for whom the sacraments are 

intended, 262. 
Vitringa on the efficacy of, 264. 



Sacraments — 

Believers the proper subjects of, 266, 
267. 

Objects of, 272. 

Westminster Standards on the objects 
of, 274-276. 

Definition of, in Shorter Catechism, 
276, et seq. 

Rutherford's views on, 279. 

Gillespie's views on, 280. 

Boston's views on, 282. 

Dr John Erskine's views on, 283. 

Scriptural positions as to, 285, 287. 
Scripture Consequences, 526, 527. 
sublapsarians — 

Controversy between, and Supralap- 
sarians, 358, et seq. 

Principles in debate between, and 
Supralapsarians, 360. 

Difference between, and Supralap- 
sarians unimportant, 362. 

Views of Dr Twisse on, and Supra- 
lapsarians, 363, 364. 

Calvin's sentiments on, and Supra- 
lapsarians, 364-366. 

Deliverance of Synod of Dort on, and 
Supralapsarians, 367-369. 

Views of Westminster Confession on, 
and Supralapsarians, 369, 370. 

Theology — 

Clear and definite views on, unpopu- 
lar in the present day, 46. 

Character of men of progress in, 48. 

Vital questions to be determined in, 
49. 

Authorities in, 406, et seq. 

Benefits of controversy iu, 410. 
Trent, Council op — 

Deliverance of, on assurance, 143, 144. 

Gave no formal decision on predes- 
tination, 188, 189. 
Tulloch, Dr — 

Character of his work, 8. 

Theology of Reformation depreciated 
by, 9. 

Injustice done by him to Calvin, 11. 

Account by, of the theology of the 
Reformation, 12-14. 

His views of Calvinism, 15, 16. 

His beliefs on the theology of the 
Reformation, 17. 

Practice of the Reformers as to Scrip- 
ture inferences disapproved of by, 
20. 

Disapproves of the theological sys- 
tems of the Reformers, 21. 

His statement of Luther's doctrine of 
justification, 23. 

Holds. that Scripture teaches no defi- 
nite doctrine on justification, 25. 



616 



INDEX. 



TULLOCH, DE — 

Considers discussion on bondage of 
the will a logomachy, 26. 

Holds that Scripture teaches no defi- 
nite principles on the organization 
of the church, 29, 30. 

His reasons against a, jus divinum, 42. 

His sketch of Luther, 50. Criticism 
upon his sketch of Luther, 51, 52. 

Westminster Confession — 

View of, on justification, 24, 405. 

Views of, on Sublapsarians and Su- 
pralapsarians, 369, 370. 

Views of, on imputation, 382, 383. 

Views of, on Calvinism, 431. 

The doctrine of philosophical neces- 
sity not opposed to, 484, et seq. 

Teaching of, on free-will, 489 et seq., 
496 et seq. 

Jonathan Edwards on, 490. 

Explanation of ninth chapter of, on 
free-will, 517, et seq. 

Views of, on the practical applica- 
tion of the doctrines of Calvinism, 
578, et seq. 
"Whately, Dr — 

Concessions by, to Calvinism, 414, 
454, 463. 

Denial by, that he holds the doctrine 
of Calvinism, 415. 

Must be regarded as an Arminian, 
417. 

His views on election, 447, 448. 

Difference between, and Sumner on 
election, 448. 

Views of, on the foreordination of 
means and ends in the system of 
Calvinism, 565. 

Unfounded allegation by, that the 
doctrines of Calvinism have no 
practical influence, 566, et seq. 

Unfounded allegation by, that the 



Westminster Confession — 

17th Article of the Church of Eng- 
land denies any practical applica- 
tion of the doctrine of election in 
the system of Calvinism, 581, et seq. 
Will— 

Bondage of, discussed by Luther and 
Erasmus, 25. 

Bondage of, discussed by Calvin and 
Pighius, 25. 

Discussion on bondage of, considered 
by Dr Tulloch a logomachy, 26. 

Locke on the freedom of, 474. 

Unfairness of arguing from conse- 
quences in the controversy on the, 
478-480. 

Opinion of Augustine on free, 485, 
486. 

Opinion of Calvin on free, 486-488. 

Teaching of Westminster Confession 
on free, 489 et seq., 496 et seq. 

Dugald Stewart on the doctrine of 
free, 483. 

Turretine on free, 498, 499, 500, 501, 
502. 

Owen on the freedom of, 502, 503. 

Distinction between liberty of, in 
man fallen andunfallen, 514, etseq. 

Explanation of ninth chap, of West- 
minster Confession on, 517, et seq. 

Zwingle — 

Essay on, 212. 

Character of, 214. 

Comparison between Luther and, 217. 

Orthodoxy of, assailed on the doc- 
trines of original sin and the sal- 
vation of the heathen, 219-221. 

Calvinism of, 222-224. 

Opinions of, on the power of the civil 
magistrate in religion, 224, 225. 

Opinions of, on the subject of the 
sacraments, 225-230. 



MURRAY AND GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



n 




KM 



all 

I 



IB 

H 

■ 
1 

■ 



